THIS IS AN OLD VERSION An updated (much better) version of this article has been published here.
Elemental Cønsciousness: An Experiencer Who Senses & Responds
Note: this article is one of two which together form the basis for an encompassing framework, described here.
Consciousness is a phenomenon we all intimately experience but few of us are drawn to examine it closely. It can be disorienting to examine consciousness because when doing so we use the agency that facilitates examination to examine itself. This convoluted circumstance is the perfect excuse to ignore the issue — which may explain why many reasonable people are content to pretend that consciousness is not a factor worth considering. But if we’re going to be truthful we have to admit it’s not entirely evident that consciousness can be detangled from most of what concerns us.
It may help to clarify things if we initially put aside consciousness’ qualities and simply focus on the fact of its existence. Within the sciences there’s a tendency to ignore consciousness as if it did not matter. This is certainly the attitude typically adopted by most physicists and it begs the question: what would this physical existence be without consciousness?
Our confusion on this subject is made worse by the terms we use. “Conscious” and “consciousness” are rather blurry English words. 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 a cønsciousness getting sense messages from a body causing behavior).
Those who have given it careful study tend to see all lifeforms at least experiencing their existence. But “sense of self” is a reflexive phenomenon— cønsciousness turning its gaze upon itself. It’s conceivable that some forms of cønsciousness will not make this reflexive leap and will simply experience without noticing their own experiencing self. This may be very difficult 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.
By this baseline: 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 (that’s the sensing part) — and do something with those signals (respond). In cases where this process cannot be empirically observed as having 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 really know 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 free 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 — one we empirically know to exist? Consciousness is without doubt an integral factor here on earth. Should we simply assume that the cønsciousness abundantly evident here on earth 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. It turns out that when we do so 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 consciousness 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 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 lies 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.
Organisms are cønscious entities organizing a network of cells which act as senses — and it’s the influence over cell behavior that characterizes the response capability of organisms. Etcetera.
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. Is it so beyond the pale to speculate about where a cønscious universe leads us?
We know at least that cønsciousness actually exists (which is for a theory really 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 by 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 ecosphere. 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 some organizing agent things tend to be chaotic. We are quite fortunate to exist within a universe that appears to be reasonably well organized. We see a vast number of definite entities (stars, galaxies etc.) most of whom exist 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 cosmic order that (so far) only dances with chaos — not allowing it to overtake all. We live in a dynamic organization.
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 network went down and cønscious entities were isolated, unable to send and receive signals over 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 without a 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 keep 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 an intranet system — and without some central organizing cønsciousness?
Is there any better candidate than cønsciousness for the Universal Organizing Principle (UOP)?
If you enjoyed this article kindly hit Medium’s clap button and follow this channel to be notified when new articles are “dropped”.
If you’d like to support this and other similar efforts:
PayPal: t a i j i r e a l i t y atsign geemaildotkom
Footnotes
1 Eric Partridge makes the tantalizing claim that both “science” and “conscious” share the same etymological root(!).
2https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22068841
3 See Mike McCulloch’s brilliant QI theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnNKC82wUmY
4 Experience can be seen as an aggregate of all sense impressions and prior processing operations.
