I see the human organism as a layering of different levels of consciousness. Each layer supports mostly automated processes that sustain the layers beneath it.
For example, we have cells that only know what it’s like to be a cell and to perform their cellular processes without any awareness of the more complex layers above them. Organs are much more complex than cells and they perform their duties without any awareness of anything above them either. And the complexity keeps increasing with various systems like endocrine, cardiovascular, etc. Then we have our subconscious and finally our conscious.
At our level, we do not consciously control any of the layers beneath us. Our primary task is to keep our bodies alive.
This got me thinking… isn’t it a little too self aggrandizing to think that we have a near infinite layering of consciousness beneath us and then it just stops at our level of awareness? What if there is some other conscious process that exists above us within our own bodies?
When people take psychedelic drugs they often describe achieving a higher level of awareness akin to ecstasy. Well what if this layer is always there actively ”living” within us but we are just the chumps that go to work, do our taxes, and exercise, while it doles out just enough feel good chemicals to keep us going (sometimes not even that)?
This is an interesting idea for sure. However, we have some evidence to support the existence of the systems beneath our minds. What evidence supports the existence of a greater awareness within ourselves? Do we have anything beyond reports from people under the influence of drugs?
I prefer to take an evidence-based approach, taking non-existence to be the null hypothesis here.
One example would be when people move around in large crowds. Their behavior can be misspelled by following fluid dynamics equations. It’s as if thousands of people share a consciousness that they don’t understand/notice.
Taoism teaches us that the it true consciousness is universal. We are essentially waves of energy, all bound together/connected by empty space. So we share a consciousness that can be tapped into his meditation and being in the moment.
I don’t think that really follows. Would you say molecules of fluid have a collective consciousness?
We might be picking up on things we don’t consciously notice that guide our movement but it’s still a local thing that doesn’t require a collective consciousness
Good to know we can just “teach” any imaginary thing we want. It sounds like it’d be neat? Fuck it, let’s teach it.
Relax. It just some mildly funny idea to entertain that we are not all there is. Such as imagining the collective conscience of all humanity and animals makes up the real God. We just can’t perceive it being inside the experiment.
There are anecdotal stories of people entering higher states of consciousness during near death experiences, extremely deep meditation, holotropic breathing exercises, etc.
Really creative people describe their most proud acts of creation as if the idea came from somewhere else. As if the concept arose independently and they tried their best to relay it into the real world.
As for the people on psychedelic drugs, they usually speak of the higher state of consciousness as being more real than the real world… which would make sense if our usual consciousness was a subset of something bigger.
Damn. All that is relatively common knowledge, yet you’re getting some weird downvotes.
They’re inconvenient to people with world views that depend on this being all there is.
I think that is the point. Does a cell have any evidence of something above it?
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”.
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.
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!
How many drugs have you taken today?
Just my anti-depressants, I swear!
We have scientifically measured data that indicates our “consciousness” is emergent in the first place, and our actual senses and reasoning faculties feed data to the part of the brain that assimilates it all and creates a story post-facto.
In other words, the consciousness you think you have is really a hallucination that tries to make sense of the world after the fact. It’s a process that has worked well enough to see humanity flourish.
But some of the underlying drivers include feedback from things like gut bacteria that we don’t consciously monitor; the brain assimilates all sorts of inputs that we never really take into consideration.
So of THESE inputs, there could be all sorts that control our body that our mind then creates parallel construction to explain… and we’d almost never know.
I learned a lot just by reading your response. If I might steal a moment of your time, I’d like to ask a follow-on question.
If consciousness is completely an emergent behavior, why does it exist at all? Can’t we simply be robots that execute this programming? Why create the story after the fact? Why should there be a watcher?
Of course, these are difficult questions and I don’t expect you to be able to address them completely, but I wonder if there is a reasonable answer.
This is the hottest question in theory of mind right now thanks to David Chalmers. It’s called the Hard Problem of Consciousness and it’s about connecting the reductionist view of the brain’s function with the first-person experience of consciousness.
I think that any explanation of consciousness completely from “the outside” will result in not being able to quantify the experience part of it. Any explanation completely from “the inside” will eventually run into the same issues as empiricism where it will be limited by subjectivity. I think that fundamentally we can’t rigorously combine these two views because they aren’t compatible. The starting points for each view carry different base assumptions.
Both may be true from within their perspectives but combining them is basically just stating that a subjective experience “maps” to a physical function. There isn’t any explanatory usefulness of mapping. It doesn’t explain why the subjective experience is there just that it happens when these other physical things happen. I’m not sure we’ll find an answer that truly resolves the hard problem, but we’re still trying.
That’s fascinating and I’d love to learn more, do you happen to have some good sources on the emerging consciousness portion at hand?
I’m a personal fan of Daniel Dennett’s multiple drafts theory of consciousness. The biggest problem of defining consciousness is that the deeper you look into where it comes from the definitions we commonly use to describe consciousness fall apart.
It’s a collaborative effort between different parts of your brain and the environment. A lot of it we aren’t even aware of. At the same time we often generate explanations for our behavior after the fact so our experience of consciousness tends to be mostly a justification mechanism, not necessarily primarily a control mechanism.
This is the coolest ask Lemmy I’ve ever seen!
deleted by creator
Who knows man
I was hoping that the CEO of Lemmy would!
Oh man I am saving this one. Next time I’m stoned with someone.
I have to say, the title did not convey the good argument you make.
This is exactly the thought behind the Hindu philosophy of Advaita (non-dualism). Not only does it argue that our state of consciousness and our state of dream are identical but also posits that in order to switch between them we have a thirst state of deep sleep. It then argues that all of these three are not the ultimate state of consciousness but there must be a state which experiences all these. Not only is this the highest state of consciousness but it should also be universal i.e. all of us are the same consciousness.
There is absolutely a subconscious super-brain within our minds that we can sometimes observe and even control to an extent. It can calculate things a lot faster that we consciously do. It’s how we dream of elaborate things, it’s how we can approximate distances, it’s how our intuition works. It can be turned into your personal assistant with enough training and awareness. I believe you can become a genius if you train this part of the mind to interact with your conscious.
Interesting intellectual work. You can further extrapolate though, there’s no good reason not to, within the thought experiment. Why should consciousness stop at cells or solar systems?
Then you can consider the multitude of distinct philosophies that are fond of all things being fundamentally and inescapably interconnected in ways we do not understand yet.
Even Jesus said the Kingdom of God lies within us, not external to us.
I actually don’t believe that consciousness stops at cells or solar systems :). I am a panpsychist which holds the view that everything in our universe is made up of consciousness (just not the super intelligent type that we typically associate with the word).
People usually get hung up on the idea… “how can you consider this rock to be conscious”. Well within this rock there are protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, molecules, etc, that all “know” how to do their thing to form a rock. If things weren’t conscious then nothing in our universe would have a shape. I believe that higher states of consciousness arise from simpler lower states.
I also suspect that consciousness is far more complex than we have guessed at so far. I’m betting the AI pursuit is going to be the research path that eventually nails it down.
Which will dismay a great many people that disagree with the idea that humans are supposed to create our own world, and bear responsibility for the things we create.
I’ve always been curious at scaling up to astrological size. Galaxies just being possible cells in an even larger entity. Not that I take this as some belief, just something I think about often.
It’s possible that there are multiple consciousnesses within a single person, and when each of them reads this post, they all think it refers to them. “You” are just one of the consciousnesses, thinking you are the main one. Or maybe you think it refers to you, but another consciousness in the same body is aware of itself as well as you and laughing at your ignorance.
You’re just jealous because the voices talk to me.
Could these be the negative and positive thoughts within ourselves?
The voices in my head tell me things all the time
This was my issue with Cogito ergo sum when I was younger.
Can we really assume as Descartes does that I am the one thinking?
Or is it only that I’m the part of me observing the thoughts go by?
So I preferred further reduction to “I observe therefore I am.”
I’m going to ignore the drugs part; having taken a great many myself, I suspect any revelations gathered under the influence unless they withstand scrutiny after the drugs are out of my system. This perspective has occasionally allowed me to prevent bad experiences from turning into horror trips.
As to your thesis, there are not infinite levels of “life” below us, right? At some point, the mechanisms at play are purely chemical interactions. Are there an infinite levels above us? If not, there must be an ultimate consciousness, above which there are no more. Why aren’t our consciousnesses that level? If we aren’t, then can that superior, ultimate consciousness also hallucinate and imagine something greater than itself? Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem implies that even an ultimate consciousness at the very top would not be able to know as a fact that there isn’t a hidden consciousness superior to itself.
As an aside, I don’t know that I’d place the subconscious below consciousness in the foundational way you built. I have wondered whether what we’ve thought of as the subconcious is merely the manifestation of right hemisphere expressing itself; callosal syndrome - while still controversial - raises some interesting questions, and while I’ve found no research exploring it, I think it’s an interesting possibility. In any case, I don’t think it’s accurate to consider it the “subconscious and finally our conscious.” I think they’re at the same level, two equal partners.
An interesting point is that no level below consciousness does science. No organ (besides the brain), no cell, no DNA strand, ponders the the question you pose.
As to your thesis, there are not infinite levels of “life” below us, right? At some point, the mechanisms at play are purely chemical interactions.
I do not believe that are are infinite levels of “life” below us or above, but I do believe there are infinite levels of consciousness. But my definition of consciousness is not restricted to life. I do not equate consciousness with “intelligence” or life. 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”.
As an aside, I don’t know that I’d place the subconscious below consciousness in the foundational way you built. I have wondered whether what we’ve thought of as the subconcious is merely the manifestation of right hemisphere expressing itself
This is a fascinating idea! Thank you for sharing and I’ll be sure to read more about this.
An interesting point is that no level below consciousness does science. No organ (besides the brain), no cell, no DNA strand, ponders the the question you pose.
I would argue that all levels below us do science, at our meta level we simply have ability to observe and describe the science that they do. Sure our cells almost definitely do not have the capacity ponder the question that I raised. But how do you know they don’t have other ways to express their agency? A renown biologist Michael Levin took some basic skin cells from a frog embryo and separated them from the rest of the organism. Astonishingly these “skin” cells rebooted themselves and converted into a new type of organism that is able to solve simple mazes, and demonstrate individual and group behaviors. Source: https://youtu.be/p3lsYlod5OU?si=t2-mBbwNWTSX2Lp8&t=389
À very interesting questions. I’ve long felt there was two possible answers to this. You can see a more complex layer at the level of the relationship we have with other beings or even objects (Me + My Favorite Song would be a being of n+1 level of complexity). I call it the Deleuze/Spinoza hypothesis.
Then, you could see it as a kind of personal truth you’re embodying, not as a creator but just as an operator, a tool. Although “personal” wouldn’t be the right word. You would embody, express, a fraction of a deep truth which is specific to each being.
Or maybe something else I’m unable to imagine.
I love the way you’ve articulated the n+1 level of complexity! As if the information that we consume alters the complexity of our own consciousness.
Also, if I may add and as other have stated, some do not see consciousness as the most complex layer of the human being. Some even consider it as an off-product of our highest functions.
