Unsatisfactory theories.

Earlier I made some theories explaining consciousness but I am unsatisfied with them. I want you to do one better.

I explained that consciousness was the photon. However that leads us with the same dilemma - What about the photon causes it to experience? What about a regurgitative feedback loop that is in 3 different timespaces at the same time causes it to experience?

There can only be 2 possibillities in the entire universe.

  1. Consciousnss is caused by something. Therefore, no matter what anyone says, the listener, the seeker will never be satisfied. Whether consciousness is caused by a black hole, photon, or even a pile of crusty old bread will they feel satisfied. They will continue to look for a deeper cause, but never be able to find it. They will find a simple cause, but that will not be enough. They will turn to religion, then they will turn to look for ever complex explanations.

  2. Consciouness spontaneously appears. This is confusing, and the seeker will try to find an underlying cause. Since there is no cause (since even if the action was in an invisible, alternate dimension it would still be the cause.) Since there is not a cause they will never understand it. That is option 2.

Option 3, is consciousness is a magical plane, magical property, and leaving everyone flabbergasted for centuries. Consciousness simply exists.

Option 4 is “explain away.” Consciousness exists because experience. Without experience you cannot exist. Therefore, you are alive and conscious because you wouldnt be aware of death. This idea soothes the seeker for a while but always leaves them with more questions, like “Why am I this body and not yours?” and “Why does my life seem special?” and “Why does the universe look beautiful” and “Why do I feel such qualia like pleasure and bliss”?

Option 5. Godcard. God gave us souls. Therefore, we are conscious. God was never created nor is aware of how he was created nor does God know how he exists. Therefore, we will never understand consciousness. Therefore, there is no use talking about the matter. Option 5.

Option 6. Consciousness is caused by collision or proximity between two bodies. Could we be magnetic force. The collision between matter and antimatter. The collision between the universe and the brain. Option 6.

Consciousness; rather, experience is fundamental. Check out Dual Aspect theory and panexperientialism ( Alfred North Whitehead ).

Magic is only what we cannot understand. At the end of the day, everything has an explanation.

with love,
sanjay

So rocks are conscious but time moves really fast for them and they don’t think?

What objects feel pain?

I’d rather say that all energy has intent and at the very least a primal sense of experience. They need not necesarily feel pain, in order to have experience.

How would an energy feel pain?

Maybe energy doesnt feel pain…the experience of being an atom is incomprehensible to us, as we are bound to human spatio-temporal experience. We can only use language metaphorically to speak of such things.

What about animal-spacial-temporal experience feels pain?

Yes, animals are closely related to us, so they probably have very similar experiences. But not exactly identical. Imagine what it is like to be an octopus.

Still not answering my question, how does a bunch of energy molecules feel pain.

There can be a spot in the universe void of consciousness. Thus consciousness cannot be most fundamental.
But there cannot be any spot anywhere in the universe void of affect. Affect is fundamental to all existence.

Consciousness forms when one specially arranged bundle of affects-upon-affects simulates within and responds with respect to the location of a distant bundle of affects = Remote Recognition. Consciousness requires a particular complex arrangement of affects-upon-affects.

So how does bundling affects a certain way cause pain?

How can you be sure affect is fundamental to all existence? Can you be sure that a rock has internal affect, internal experience, even on a lowlevel?

Why is consciousness centered in me and not you? Will I ever experience your life? (Not that I would want to.)

This has nothing to do with the time. Rocks cannot think because they do not have consciousness.

In the same way, only those entities feel pain who have consciousness.

With love,
Sanjay

The same way it causes pain in you.

Because without having affect, it doesn’t exist and with affect it does exist.

I don’t know what you mean by “experience” (rock or no rock). But if there is an internal that exists, that internal must not only have affect (as noted above), but also be affected (“experience”?).

Why am I smarter than you?
… seems like a silly question.
What did you mean?

If you experienced “my life”, then it would be “your life”.
Your life is whatever you experience.

Your question presupposes that they DO feel pain.

If they do feel pain, I’m not sure how to put into words how they would experience pain. The only experience I have is of being a human being, with a central nervous system. Atoms don’t have brains, or nervous systems, so their experience of pain ( if they feel pain ) is ineffable, to us.

That tells me nothing.

Define affect. I assumed you meant internal affect within itself. Otherwise this discussion would degrade into a discussion about solipism.

Are you talking about solipism (rock has affect to me) or rock has affect to itself. How can you prove a rock has affect to itself?

If you were smart you wouldn’t waste my time with this sillyness. You haven’t answered any of my questions.

No shit sherlock. Doesn’t answer my question either, stop wasting my time with pedantics. I seriously thought you weren’t going to waste my time fussing with pronouns, and you did it anyway.

So why does feeling proximity to or being part of nerves cause pain?

:laughing:

That’s part of the survival strategy, Trix. We feel pain, because it is conducive to our survival.

Thats analogous to dennet’s argument about consciousness. He says we are conscious because it helps us survive in the wild. Of course, his argument makes little sense when you start to think about the qualia involved. Evolution is not intelligient in the sense that it could match qualia to external physical states. This is more evident when you try to go against evolution, and feel pleasure from starving and cutting yourself, and homosexual behavoir. So pain is a real thing, but does not always correlate to evolutionary direction. Also the idea that evolution created consciousness makes it seem like an intelligient decision, and natural selection is not intelligient, it only mirrors Earth climate.

I don’t agree with Dennet’s take on consciousness; he is a strict materialist. But, even though I am a pan-experientialist, I do believe evolution had a part in the development of consciousness, not the creation of it.

Nature is not a mere mechanism, devoid of a telos; it’s animistic and mechanistic. Nature strives, pushes forward towards an end. Some call this end ‘power’, while other may call it ‘creativity’, or ‘survival’.

In inorganic matter, you can see how energy strives to expand ( gravitation ). In the organic, we see this tendency in replication ( expansion of genes ). In society, we see it in the accumulation of wealth.

Will to power.

Evolution did not create consciousness ex-nihilo; rather, it upgraded primal subjectivity into self-reflective consciousness.