Is there an animating impetus behind a living consciousness?

[Klaatu]

There seems to be a bit of disagreement as to whether a "life force" (or it's equivalent) exists, and how or whether this applies to

living things. Thank you for voting.

[Taters]

Why should we suppose this 'life force' exists in the first place?

[Klaatu]

Why should we suppose this 'life force' exists in the first place?

Thanks for the question.

The question is also, what is consciousness? What makes us aware? What animates our minds? Are we nothing more than simple chemical reactions? And if so, do all chemical reactions possess conscientiousness? (Can a rock think?) What makes humans think and behave? How do/can these things happen?

Perhaps these are silly questions... but then something to wonder about. ;)

[d3crypt]

Man i would love to know... But i'm gonna say that no there is not.

[BIXX]

And if so, do all chemical reactions possess conscientiousness?

You are misunderstanding the relation of "consciousness" to the chemical reactions, if you are asking this question.

The chemical reactions make our brains (which are biological, chemical computers) react in a certain way.

Think of your computer. If you press the "s" key, "s" appears on the screen. Likewise, the "a" and "d" keys make "a" and "d" appear on your screen. Put them together they'll form "sad". If you imagine the keys as stimuli and the letters as the chemicals, then the final word is the emotion. The same thing goes for our thoughts, etc...

[Zealot]

I don't know, maybe we're all just avatars, recipients of consciousness mass-produced by some infinite consciousness-generator in the outerverse. There could be millions of gremlins in some control tower flipping switches to trigger our emotions for all I know.

[Rafiq]

Consciousness is a product of the struggle for a living organism to survive. Organic molecules spawn spontaneously from inorganic molecules in the right conditions. Therefore, life itself comes from no life, and furthermore, consciousness from no consciousness.

[Thirsty Crow]

The question and poll options are confusing and vague.

A "life force" What could that be, actually? But sure, if you wished to specify the terms used you'd have to point out what it refers to. But you can't do so if at the same time you do not have sufficient basis to conclude that there is a "life force", so you're left with a conundrum (which is practically solved, probably, by illuminating this question as vague and metaphysical).

Also, animating impetus? Like what, gravity? Electromagnetism, chemical reactions, cellular re/actions...I have no idea.

And the poll...living consciousness, well I'm certainly a living being and am conscious (as in capable of thinking), but there's also a shitload of chemical reactions going on in my whole body. So I can't really vote option 3, or either one for that matter.

Anyway, I don't believe in mystical or quasi-mystical Beings and forces.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't like any of the poll options. The idea of a singular animating force, divinely sourced or otherwise, is completely without basis.

On the other hand, to say that we are "nothing but chemical reactions" is a gross oversimplification of the marvelously complex and diverse physical events that are involved in bringing about human consciousness. Our bodies are composed of organs which are composed of tissues which are composed of cells which are composed of proteins which are composed of complex organic molecules, crossing seamlessly over into chemistry as we go from those down to simple molecules, and from then on smoothly transition into physics as we go down to atoms and their sub-components. At every level there are intricate flows of matter and energy, channeled and governed by a fractal mosaic of physical, chemical and biological rules.

To reduce all of that to "chemical reactions" or a "life force" is in fact reductionism of the worst kind. Which is kind of ironic considering that those who take the idea of animating forces seriously are the ones who usually claim to take the "holistic" viewpoint.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Who knows. It's nice to think that we are more than just chemical reactions.

To be fair, it might be a fair argument to say that, given our complexity, even if we are just the result of chemical reactions, it could be that such reactions are so advanced, complex and personal, that they can 'create' a sort of consciousness.

I don't think anybody has ever listened to their favourite song, listened deeply to the lyrics, cried, and put it down to a random mix of serotonin or dopamine or whatever.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

'living things' is a human philosophical construct.

What makes metabolism so different from the other chemical reactions that occur throughout the universe?

And why are people 'devalued' when they learn that they are made of the same stuff as the rest of the earth? Nothing's really changed about people. So why would you view people any differently than you always have after such a revelation?

Mind you, I don't see how consciousness and chemical reactions are not mutually exclusive.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Vital impulses were driven out of biology when it became a serious, predictive science. As for consciousness, that can either mean conscious responses to stimuli, which is an obviously material phenomenon explicable through physiology, chemistry and such disciplines, or some sort of qualia-thing that no one has any evidence for, and that is an invention of modern neo-Machian philosophy.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'd go so far as to claim that there is no such thing as "consciousness" at all. We are conscious, which is a medical state, but "we" do not possess anything called "consciousness."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'd go so far as to claim that there is no such thing as "consciousness" at all. We are conscious, which is a medical state, but "we" do not possess anything called "consciousness."

Well, clearly there is something that can persist between bouts of unconsciousness - there is an "I" that persists for as long as the organism is in a fit state to sustain such a process; what should we call that?

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, clearly there is something that can persist between bouts of unconsciousness - there is an "I" that persists for as long as the organism is in a fit state to sustain such a process; what should we call that?

Linguistic games. Given that all our thought is tied to language, and given that language operates on a fundamental binary, it is only logical that things which are not things are called such: consciousness, for example. Likewise, the "self." There is no such "thing." But since we think in language, we necessitate a subject/object/verb relationship in our thinking.

In short, what persists between states of unconsciousness is a story, our story, which we tell ourselves and others and all agree upon. When you emerge from being unconscious, your brain remembers everything up to the point of being unconscious, and your story is then continued. But this is still a linguistic story - there is no material "I" anywhere, just as there is no "consciousness" to be found in your brain.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would put it like this: consciousness is a sort of behaviour, that included linguistic behaviour but also nonlinguistic responses, so it makes no sense to talk about it as a sort of object that people have or that is located in the brain etc. That is a reflection of the old idealist philosophy, sustained by linguistic confusion - just barely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Linguistic games. Given that all our thought is tied to language, and given that language operates on a fundamental binary, it is only logical that things which are not things are called such: consciousness, for example. Likewise, the "self." There is no such "thing." But since we think in language, we necessitate a subject/object/verb relationship in our thinking.

Of course what is commonly called consciousness isn't a physical thing which we can find by cracking open a human skull; even if what we typically call consciousness is some kind of illusion or facsimile, there is a causal process of some kind going on. It's readily apparent from studies of people with brain injuries that the brain is the locus of this process. Kind of like how the process of vehicular movement has a locus in the engine - if the operation of the engine is sufficiently damaged or impeded, then the vehicle's motion falters and/or stops. There isn't a "thing" called vehicular motion - rather, it is the emergent process of a particular set of circumstances.


In short, what persists between states of unconsciousness is a story, our story, which we tell ourselves and others and all agree upon. When you emerge from being unconscious, your brain remembers everything up to the point of being unconscious, and your story is then continued. But this is still a linguistic story - there is no material "I" anywhere, just as there is no "consciousness" to be found in your brain.

But how does the story persist in the absence of a storyteller?

[Decolonize The Left]

Of course what is commonly called consciousness isn't a physical thing which we can find by cracking open a human skull; even if what we typically call consciousness is some kind of illusion or facsimile, there is a causal process of some kind going on. It's readily apparent from studies of people with brain injuries that the brain is the locus of this process. Kind of like how the process of vehicular movement has a locus in the engine - if the operation of the engine is sufficiently damaged or impeded, then the vehicle's motion falters and/or stops. There isn't a "thing" called vehicular motion - rather, it is the emergent process of a particular set of circumstances.

I do not think it is appropriate to call consciousness a process. Semendyaev has called it a behavior, and while I appreciate the forward movement in these ideas, I don't agree with either.

What is a process and a behavior is thought; the thinking brain. This brain is conscious or unconscious, but it does not possess consciousness. My real point is that it is a simple linguistic trick to go from: I am conscious, to: I have consciousness.
Other examples include: I am a man > I possess manhood. I am a human > I have humanity. I am alive > I possess life.
All of these linguistic turns are false and are all predicated upon the evolution of the linguistic story of the "self."

EDIT: Observe an alternative linguistic turn which is not fale.
I am a man > I am manhood. I am a human > I am humanity. I am alive > I am life.

All of these turns are true, as they do not abstract out of the self in order to reference back to it.


But how does the story persist in the absence of a storyteller?

Are you referring to when one is unconscious? It is as though one was reading a book and fell asleep. One wakes, looks down at the page, remembers where one left off, and continues reading. Only in this analogy one is not reading but writing (and reading at the same time) and the book is not in front of one but is oneself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do not think it is appropriate to call consciousness a process. Semendyaev has called it a behavior, and while I appreciate the forward movement in these ideas, I don't agree with either.

What is a process and a behavior is thought; the thinking brain. This brain is conscious or unconscious, but it does not possess consciousness. My real point is that it is a simple linguistic trick to go from: I am conscious, to: I have consciousness.
Other examples include: I am a man > I possess manhood. I am a human > I have humanity. I am alive > I possess life.
All of these linguistic turns are false and are all predicated upon the evolution of the linguistic story of the "self."

EDIT: Observe an alternative linguistic turn which is not fale.
I am a man > I am manhood. I am a human > I am humanity. I am alive > I am life.

All of these turns are true, as they do not abstract out of the self in order to reference back to it.

So the correct turn for consciousness would be: I am conscious > I am consciousness?

I fail to see how that negates the notion of consciousness as a process.


Are you referring to when one is unconscious? It is as though one was reading a book and fell asleep. One wakes, looks down at the page, remembers where one left off, and continues reading. Only in this analogy one is not reading but writing (and reading at the same time) and the book is not in front of one but is oneself.

But what maintains causal connectivity while the writing is on pause, so to speak? The vast majority of people seem to have a single "author" as it were.

[Decolonize The Left]

So the correct turn for consciousness would be: I am conscious > I am consciousness?

That would be the correct turn, but it is likewise as unnecessary and meaningless as "I am life / I am humanity / I am manhood" as in all these turns the problematic notion is the "I."


I fail to see how that negates the notion of consciousness as a process.

Well, here's an alternative approach: we know what it is to be conscious, it is a medical state characterized by awareness and lucidity. What is consciousness? If it is a process, as you are claiming (or a behavior as we mentioned above), what is it a process (or behavior) of?


But what maintains causal connectivity while the writing is on pause, so to speak? The vast majority of people seem to have a single "author" as it were.

Memory. Example: Someone with complete memory loss does not know 'who they are.' Their story is blank. They have all the hardwired capabilities such as using their arms and legs, eating, walking, etc... but they have no story. "Life" is a story we tell each other. "We" are stories we all agree upon. Sure there is physical stuff going on but what we're talking about here is meaning and all meaning is invented: All meaning is story-telling.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Mrm. To posit consciousness or thinking as an internally driven process, event, or object, or an "I" as fundamentally alienable from the totality of environment seems fraught with complications. After all, even one's experience of selfhood is predicated on a relationship to "not me" that is fluid (physically, in terms of the fluidity of the body, and psychically in terms fluidity of the thought). Any continuity, imho, has to be understood in the context of the continuity of the totality.
For a point of reference, consider a hurricane: it's not a closed system, but a dynamic that emerges out of, and dissolves into weather/climate/etc. without ever really being separate from it. Its singularity is temporal and experiential/linguistic rather than physical or innate.
And now I've started thinking about time, and my head hurts. Ugh.

[Decolonize The Left]

Mrm. To posit consciousness or thinking as an internally driven process, event, or object, or an "I" as fundamentally alienable from the totality of environment seems fraught with complications. After all, even one's experience of selfhood is predicated on a relationship to "not me" that is fluid (physically, in terms of the fluidity of the body, and psychically in terms fluidity of the thought). Any continuity, imho, has to be understood in the context of the continuity of the totality.
For a point of reference, consider a hurricane: it's not a closed system, but a dynamic that emerges out of, and dissolves into weather/climate/etc. without ever really being separate from it. Its singularity is temporal and experiential/linguistic rather than physical or innate.
And now I've started thinking about time, and my head hurts. Ugh.

I do not believe I have been clear, I apologize.

I am not positing that the "I" is alienable from material reality, I am saying it is a story written about that reality in which a subject is posited because all linguistic structures operate on this premise. Over time, we forgot that it was a story and began to assume the story to be true. More stories were written taking this premise for granted, etc.. etc... and we are where we are now today.

We cannot divorce the story from reality. Likewise, reality cannot be divorced from the story as it is through the story that we see, relate to, and understand reality. To try to do so is to fall into the abyss of nihilism. But this doesn't change the fact that it is a story and deserves to be admitted as such. Consequently, acknowledging it as a story puts an end to religion, idealism, and bourgeois morality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That would be the correct turn, but it is likewise as unnecessary and meaningless as "I am life / I am humanity / I am manhood" as in all these turns the problematic notion is the "I."

Forgive me if I'm not following, but how is "I" problematic? If there no such thing (or process, or emergent condition, or whatever) as "I", then whence subjectivity?


Well, here's an alternative approach: we know what it is to be conscious, it is a medical state characterized by awareness and lucidity. What is consciousness? If it is a process, as you are claiming (or a behavior as we mentioned above), what is it a process (or behavior) of?

Living brains? Reasonably healthy ones of course, since there are various conditions and afflictions that can impact on the consciousness-process to varying degrees. Given the complex and highly granular nature of brains it strikes me as reasonable to assume that consciousness is more like a spectrum rather than a binary condition. Biology strikes me as kind of a fuzzy science in that respect.


Memory. Example: Someone with complete memory loss does not know 'who they are.' Their story is blank. They have all the hardwired capabilities such as using their arms and legs, eating, walking, etc... but they have no story. "Life" is a story we tell each other. "We" are stories we all agree upon. Sure there is physical stuff going on but what we're talking about here is meaning and all meaning is invented: All meaning is story-telling.

Doesn't this have rather unfortunate implications? There are examples of human beings lacking language ("feral children" are one I believe), but I would be supremely reluctant to obviate or downgrade their sapient status on that basis.

[Klaatu]

I must admit that my original premise was incomplete, even poorly worded. But this is exactly why I am asking the questions: I do not know what this thing we call consciousness is really all about (no one really knows for sure, for that matter, hence the polling: what do you think?)

I appreciate all of your great answers; this is exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks to all who have voted and especially for the thoughtful analysis!

That being said, if we are not much but chemical reactions and electrical impulses, sans an unknown driving force, then are we not merely the equivalent of the android "Data" from Star Trek NG?

[Sea]

There seems to be a bit of disagreement as to whether a "life force" (or it's equivalent) exists, and how or whether this applies to

living things. Thank you for voting.Has anyone really tried to argue to you that a life force exists, but does not apply to living things?

[Decolonize The Left]

Forgive me if I'm not following, but how is "I" problematic? If there no such thing (or process, or emergent condition, or whatever) as "I", then whence subjectivity?

No problems at all - I can understand how it might be difficult to follow as what we are discussing is merely my personal thoughts on the topic. I have no academic/professional expertise in this matter, so it is understandable that I am difficult to comprehend at times.

Subjectivity is likewise a linguistic game. There is no subject/object in material reality; these are linguistic phenomenon that, over the years, have become accepted as fact.


Living brains? Reasonably healthy ones of course, since there are various conditions and afflictions that can impact on the consciousness-process to varying degrees. Given the complex and highly granular nature of brains it strikes me as reasonable to assume that consciousness is more like a spectrum rather than a binary condition. Biology strikes me as kind of a fuzzy science in that respect.

I do like your notion of consciousness as a spectrum more than as a binary, but I am left wondering whether or not this is further abstraction. As a question: what does consciousness cover which lucidity and awareness does not? Why the extra term? Would it not be enough to say that there is a spectrum of brain functions?


Doesn't this have rather unfortunate implications? There are examples of human beings lacking language ("feral children" are one I believe), but I would be supremely reluctant to obviate or downgrade their sapient status on that basis.

Yes it does. But I want to be clear that my use of language as an important qualifier is in regards to "people," not humans. Humans are a biological species; people are a philosophical concept. So yes, I think that humans who do not possess language are not people (babies, severely mentally disabled, etc...). But on the flip side, my definitions allow for anything to be a person (Data from Star Trek, for example, seeing as how this was just raised by the OP). So while it limits on one end, it is endless on the other.

[Decolonize The Left]

That being said, if we are not much but chemical reactions and electrical impulses, sans an unknown driving force, then are we not merely the equivalent of the android "Data" from Star Trek NG?

No. I do not believe that Data could experience emotions (forgive me but I'm not a Trekkie). So there's one huge difference. Furthermore, Data was programmed by someone: people. We were not programmed by anything, we evolved to have the physical content that we have today.

[Rafiq]

I don't like any of the poll options. The idea of a singular animating force, divinely sourced or otherwise, is completely without basis.

On the other hand, to say that we are "nothing but chemical reactions" is a gross oversimplification of the marvelously complex and diverse physical events that are involved in bringing about human consciousness. Our bodies are composed of organs which are composed of tissues which are composed of cells which are composed of proteins which are composed of complex organic molecules, crossing seamlessly over into chemistry as we go from those down to simple molecules, and from then on smoothly transition into physics as we go down to atoms and their sub-components. At every level there are intricate flows of matter and energy, channeled and governed by a fractal mosaic of physical, chemical and biological rules.

To reduce all of that to "chemical reactions" or a "life force" is in fact reductionism of the worst kind. Which is kind of ironic considering that those who take the idea of animating forces seriously are the ones who usually claim to take the "holistic" viewpoint.

Okay, but doesn't a rock or a pile of shit smoothly transition into physics as well? We are talking about what distinguishes consciousness from objects devoid of consciousness, moreover, human consciousness from other forms of consciousness, which is just chemical reactions. We are just chemical reactions, if we do away with metaphysics (I.e. already pre suppose that all things are made of matter and energy and their relationship etc.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Okay, but doesn't a rock or a pile of shit smoothly transition into physics as well? We are talking about what distinguishes consciousness from objects devoid of consciousness, moreover, human consciousness from other forms of consciousness, which is just chemical reactions. We are just chemical reactions, if we do away with metaphysics (I.e. already pre suppose that all things are made of matter and energy and their relationship etc.)

Doesn't the arrangement of matter and energy count for something? It seems clear that human brains, while governed by the same laws of physics, produce different phenomena to rocks and feces due to said arrangement.

How on Earth is any of that metaphysical? I'm talking about entities and phenomena which we can directly observe in an empirical fashion. That is physics, not metaphysics.

[Rafiq]

Doesn't the arrangement of matter and energy count for something? It seems clear that human brains, while governed by the same laws of physics, produce different phenomena to rocks and feces due to said arrangement.

How on Earth is any of that metaphysical? I'm talking about entities and phenomena which we can directly observe in an empirical fashion. That is physics, not metaphysics.

The arrangement of matter and energy is not what we observe to DIRECTLY produce things like thought and certain behavior, it simply lays the basis that allows those things to occur, what does is chemistry. And what do you mean by "matter"? The elements are what form said chemical reactions, I don't understand what you're getting at. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging just how mechanical we actually are, I find it metaphysical to add conceptual dimensions to humanity in general because of what we all know is obvious: That we compose of a relationship between matter and energy, because as it happens most things that exist do as well, and our specific arrangement is nothing exclusively unique in the grand scheme of things. It's like saying the unique nature of our skeletal structure necessarily makes it so we are not simply made of chemical reactions because it is a specific arrangement of matter that allows, through our spinal cord our brain to connect with our nerves and so on. That is metaphysical.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The arrangement of matter and energy is not what we observe to DIRECTLY produce things like thought and certain behavior, it simply lays the basis that allows those things to occur, what does is chemistry.

Chemicals are made out of atoms and molecules. I think it's fairly safe to say that physics and chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry) can overlap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry) depending on the focus of research. It seems to me that the divisions between the natural sciences are a matter of history and human convenience rather than reflecting the nature of the universe.


And what do you mean by "matter"?

Basically atoms (elementary or arranged in molecules) or baryons.


The elements are what form said chemical reactions, I don't understand what you're getting at. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging just how mechanical we actually are, I find it metaphysical to add conceptual dimensions to humanity in general because of what we all know is obvious: That we compose of a relationship between matter and energy, because as it happens most things that exist do as well, and our specific arrangement is nothing exclusively unique in the grand scheme of things.

Well, I actually very much doubt that we are unique in being sapient. The sheer size of the universe and the relatively abundant nature of the stuff we're made of allows for plenty of chances for life and awareness and intelligence to naturally evolve.


It's like saying the unique nature of our skeletal structure necessarily makes it so we are not simply made of chemical reactions because it is a specific arrangement of matter that allows, through our spinal cord our brain to connect with our nerves and so on. That is metaphysical.

I don't recall stating anything about uniqueness. I just think that "chemical reactions" is an inadequate way of describing the mechanisms behind human intelligence.

[Klaatu]

Has anyone really tried to argue to you that a life force exists, but does not apply to living things?

No, not really. Not yet, anyway.