[crazygringo]

Sure, ELI5: the only things we actually know are from our conscious experience. Everything else we have to logically infer from those conscious experiences. Literally everything is built upon our conscious awareness. We have direct experience of our conscious awareness before we can even do physics to determine the four fundamental forces at all.

To clarify, consciousness isn't just a fundamental aspect of the universe -- for our human minds, it's the most fundamental aspect.

If you want to take this to an extreme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

[some_furry]

That's an interesting philosophy, but I don't see how consciousness is implied by the standard model or the current investigations into physics beyond the standard model.

[crazygringo]

It isn't. It still has to be integrated with it, that's the whole point. We don't know how gravity is implied by the standard model either, but we still know it's there.

The point is that, at the end of the day, it's still necessarily going to be physics.

[some_furry]

I'm not a philosopher. I did study physics in college.

I do not see it necessary for consciousness to be as fundamental as electroweak interactions and so on. In my mind, it's perfectly possible for consciousness to be an emergent property of a complex system that itself is not conscious in any meaningful way.

Look at other examples of this; i.e. tensegrity.

To conclude that consciousness is as fundamental as bosons or gravity needs a lot of evidence.

Since you said so definitively that you believe that conclusion is true, I was hoping you had specific evidence on hand.

[crazygringo]

Nobody said consciousness is best described at the subatomic level next to bosons. It may be, it may not be. Currently there is no evidence in either direction. Gravity certainly proves that the standard model is quite incomplete so far, and we currently don't have the slightest idea how.

But I earlier used fluid dynamics as an example of emergence. To make the point that fluid dynamics is still physics.

Philosophically, the fact that consciousness is going to be part of physics is self-evidently true. It's true by definition if you believe that consciousness interacts with the universe as described by physics -- for which the specific evidence is that we're having this conversation in the first place.

[soatok]

> Nobody said consciousness is best described at the subatomic level next to bosons.

Above:

> Conscious awareness appears to be a fundamental aspect of the universe -- as fundamental as the four known fundamental forces

If it's as fundamental as the four fundamental forces, then it belongs in the same level of abstraction. Fluid dynamics isn't as fundamental as quantum chromodynamics.

I found the statement that consciousness is as fundamental should be worthy of further examination. Hence, my inquiry.

> But philosophically, the fact that consciousness is going to be part of physics is self-evidently true. It's true by definition if you believe that consciousness interacts with the universe as described by physics -- for which the specific evidence is that we're having this conversation in the first place.

Okay, yes, but that's a very different notion than what was discussed above. Consciousness being purely physical is, I believe, the most likely explanation. It being as fundamental as neutrinos is not.

(My primary account is rate limited, so I'm posting my final comment in this thread from my alt.)

[crazygringo]

> If it's as fundamental as the four fundamental forces, then it belongs in the same level of abstraction.

I didn't say that it belongs at the same level of abstraction, and no that isn't necessarily implied. It might be even deeper, it might be something in parallel that then interacts at a higher level, we currently don't have the slightest idea.

And there certainly isn't any evidence that it isn't as deep as neutrinos, for example. You assert that there is a "most likely explanation", but there isn't. Nothing is most likely when there is no evidence at all in any direction.

But we know consciousness interacts with the physical universe, so we can say that it's part of physics. We're just trying to locate where. But nothing rules out the subatomic level prima facie. The root-level comment attempted to do something like that, and I am pushing back on that.

[mindok]

How can you conceive of bosons or gravity without consciousness? How can you possibly prove objective reality through the filter of subjective consciousness?

[some_furry]

It doesn't matter how I conceive of anything. They existed for billions of years before I came around.

Even if, like, I take a solipsistic approach to life, objective reality has a sort of object permanence to it that's more stable than e.g. my dreams. So even if everything is a hallucination, the mechanism for preserving the information is the closest to "real" I can identify.

And from studying the things we call real, we understand physics. And from physics, I see nowhere that necessitates consciousness at a super low level.

Care to cite and explain the specific mechanisms that I'm not aware of that do necessitate it?

[2snakes]

Just consider that everything you come in contact with, including the assertion of the sense-data that led you to the conclusion of "billions of years", is contaminated by the fact that is utterly impossible to disprove consciousness. Everything else that comes in through the senses can be doubted, but consciousness is the only thing you are in direct contact with. But I agree partially with you that there may be a form of consciousness that is more primary than our subjective consciousness (I think we agree that reality is a "real" logical system, probably infinite, and possibly intelligent itself). But we have a relationship with reality, in fact we may be a kind of accelerated rotation of it with reincarnative compartmentalization.

I've only read the first couple of chapters, yet, but this book lay out the philosophical problems with physicalism: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0CGNXWTBN

[nico]

> They existed for billions of years before I came around.

And how did you come to learn this? Through your consciousness

Everything that you can know or experience is mediated through your consciousness

Anything you believe to be objective truth or reality, you came to believe through consciousness

There is no way for you (or anyone else for that matter), to know if anything really exists outside our own consciousness

[tsimionescu]

This argument leads to solipsism, so it's not very fruitful. That is, you can easily replace "bosons or gravity" with "everything in the universe except myself, including other humans" and your argument doesn't change.

But then you actually can't say anything about anything, since you're the only thing that really exists and everything else is a just a figment of your mind.

[fatfingerd]

You've just demonstrated the anthropic principle. Intelligent contemplation requires a lot of things so we will see them and can see them as fundamental, but they might be obscure in the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[crazygringo]

No, you are misunderstanding the anthropic principle. That merely explains statistical things such as why it might be hard to find intelligent life elsewhere.

The anthropic principle is a concept we've created out of our conscious observation of the universe. But take away our consciousness and you take away any and all of our knowledge of any universe whatsoever.

Consciousness cannot be "obscure" when it is the basis for one's own experienced reality, the substrata underlying everything else. Consciousness experience is fact; our conceptual understanding of the universe is mere theory. Well-tested theory, but theory nonetheless.

[fatfingerd]

> Consciousness cannot be "obscure" when it is the basis for one's own experienced reality, the substrata underlying everything else.

That you can do any of this has consciousness as a precondition, it is of significance to us but we are most likely a statistical anomaly in the Universe. It is statistically probable that we have this rather fragile viewpoint on the Universe, that's only available in small places for short times, because consciousness has preconditions.

For people who work in or consume TV and film maybe the video camera seems fundamental to the nature of the world, but it wasn't very important before it was created.