Is a rock conscious?

The subject of consciousness has been debated for millennia, partly because there is no agreed-upon definition.

Some definitions are: The state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings; a person’s awareness or perception of something; the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world; the individual awareness of unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations, and environments; subjective and unique awareness of oneself and the world around.

Note the repeated use of the word “awareness,” which leads to the question, “What is awareness”?

Here is one answer: In philosophy and psychology, awareness is a perception or knowledge of something.

The concept is often synonymous to consciousness.^[2] However, one can be aware of something without being explicitly conscious of it, such as in the case of blindsight. 

The states of awareness are also associated with the states of experience so that the structure represented in awareness is mirrored in the structure of experience.

Based on these definitions, is a photon conscious? A stone? A house? A bacterium? A bee? A tree? A fish? A bear? A human in a coma? A sleeping human? An awake human?

Where in the above list do you draw the line between consciousness and non-consciousness?

In two posts on this blog, “What is consciousness? The hard problem and the “sensingness” solution. and “Consciousness is not “conscious.” It’s sensing, and everything senses,” we explore the “hard” question of consciousness.

We conclude that consciousness isn’t some mysterious, ethereal, unexplainable, unique phenomenon that we all know but cannot describe.

Instead, consciousness is a gradient of sensing. The more a thing senses, the more conscious it is.

So yes, a photon is conscious, and an awake human is more conscious.

I was reminded of this when I read an article, excerpts from which are:

Can Consciousness Exist Without a Brain?
Scientists have expended prolific efforts searching for the elusive anatomical correlate of consciousness. Yet, the origins of consciousness remain unclear. By Yuhong Dong M.D., Ph.D., Makai Allbert, September 30, 2024

This is part 1 in “Where Does Consciousness Come From?”
This series delves into research by renowned medical doctors to explore profound questions about consciousness, existence, and what may lie beyond.

“As a neurosurgeon, I was taught that the brain creates consciousness,” said Dr. Eben Alexander, who wrote in detail about his experiences with consciousness while in a deep coma.

Many doctors and biomedical students may have been taught the same about consciousness. However, scientists are still debating whether that theory holds true.

The more we learn about consciousness, the more we begin to believe that consciousness is not just a brain function.

Imagine a child observing an elephant for the first time. Light reflects off the animal and enters the child’s eyes. Retinal photoreceptors in the back of the eyes convert this light into electrical signals, which travel through the optic nerve to the brain’s cortex. This forms vision or visual consciousness.

How do these electrical signals miraculously transform into a vivid mental image? How do they turn into the child’s thoughts, followed by an emotional reaction—“Wow, the elephant is so big!”

The question of how the brain generates subjective perceptions, including images, feelings, and experiences, was coined by Australian cognitive scientist David Chalmers in 1995 as the “hard problem.”

As it turns out, having a brain may not be a prerequisite for consciousness.

The Lancet recorded a case of a French man diagnosed with postnatal hydrocephalus—excess cerebrospinal fluid on or around the brain—at the age of 6 months.

Despite his condition, he grew up healthy, became a married father of two children, and worked as a civil servant.

When he was 44 years old, he went to the doctor due to a mild weakness in his left leg. The doctors scanned his head thoroughly and discovered that his brain tissue was almost entirely gone.

Most of the space in his skull was filled with fluid, with only a thin sheet of brain tissue.

“The brain was virtually absent,” wrote the lead author of the case study, Dr. Lionel Feuillet, of the Department of Neurology, Hôpital de la Timone in Marseille, France.

The man had been living a normal life and had no problem seeing, feeling, or perceiving things.

The Lancet recorded a case of a French civil servant diagnosed with postnatal hydrocephalus at the age of 6 months. Later, an MRI revealed massive enlargement of the lateral, third, and fourth ventricles, a very thin cortical mantle, and a posterior fossa cyst.

The normal brain cortex is responsible for sense and movement, and the hippocampus is responsible for memory. Hydrocephalus patients lose or have significantly less volume of these brain regions, yet they can still perform related functions.

Even without substantial brains, these people can have above-average cognitive function.

Professor John Lorber (1915–1996), a neurologist from the University of Sheffield, analyzed more than 600 cases of children with hydrocephalus. Of those, he found that half of around 60 children with the most severe type of hydrocephalus and cerebral atrophy had an IQ higher than 100 and lived normal lives.

Among them, one university student had excellent grades, a first-class honors degree in mathematics, an IQ of 126, and was socially normal.

This math genius’s brain was only 1 millimeter thick, while an average person’s is usually 4.5 centimeters thick—44 times larger.

“The important thing about Lorber is that he’s done a long series of systematic scanning rather than just dealing with anecdotes.” Patrick Wall (1925–2001), professor of anatomy at University College London, was quoted as saying in an article by Roger Lewin published in Science in 1981 discussing Lorber’s article.

The cases of people without brains challenge the conventional teachings that brain structure is the basis for generating consciousness.

Is our brain—weighing about three pounds, with roughly two billion neurons connected by around 500 trillion synap ases—the real source of consciousness?

Some scientists have proposed that deep and invisible structures in the brain explain normal cognitive function—even with severe hydrocephalus.

These structures may not be easily visible on conventional brain scans or to the naked eye. However, the fact that they are not readily apparent doesn’t mean they don’t exist or aren’t important for brain function.

Here, science begins a strange but typical journey. The belief that the brain is the source of consciousness is ingrained.

When someone who clearly is conscious but has very little brain is examined, the immediate attempt is to save the “consciousness-is-in-the-brain” hypothesis.

So, scientists search for invisible brain structures that account for the phenomenon of consciousness.

It reminds one of the search for invisible connections among entangled quantum particles, with even the great Einstein complaining about “spooky action at a distance.”

We now believe there are no invisible connections among entangled particles, and in the same vein, I suggest there are no invisible brain structures that account for consciousness.

“For hundreds of years neurologists have assumed that all that is dear to them is performed by the cortex, but it may well be that the deep structures in the brain carry out many of the functions assumed to be the sole province of the cortex,” Wall commented in the 1981 article.

Or, it may be no such structures exist.

These unknown deep structures “are undoubtedly important for many functions,” said neurologist Norman Geschwind (1926–1984) from Beth Israel Hospital, affiliated with Harvard University, in the 1981 article.

Furthermore, the deep structures “are almost certainly more important than is currently thought,” said David Bowsher, a professor of neurophysiology at the University of Liverpool in the UK, in the same article.

The source of consciousness may exist in realms we’ve yet to explore. When medical theories can’t solve a mystery, physics might step in with a plot twist—in particular—quantum physics.

Quantum physics, which no human understands, has become the new “dark magic” or the new “God,” explaining all that current science cannot explain.

“To understand consciousness, we can’t just look at the neurons,” Dr. Stuart Hameroff, director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, told The Epoch Times.

Even single-celled organisms like paramecium demonstrate purposeful behaviors such as swimming, avoiding obstacles, mating, and, significantly—learning—without having a single synapse or being part of a neural network.

That should be a clue. “Purposeful behaviors” require purpose, and presumably, having a purpose requires some element of consciousness.

According to Hameroff, these intelligent, possibly conscious behaviors are mediated by microtubules inside the paramecium. The same microtubules are found in brain neurons and all animal and plant cells.

Microtubules, as the name suggests, are tiny tubes inside cells. They play essential roles in cell division, movement, and intracellular transport and appear to be the information carriers in neurons.

The proteins that make up microtubules (tubulin) are “the most prevalent or abundant protein in the whole brain,” Hameroff told The Epoch Times. He hypothesizes that microtubules are key players in human consciousness.

Hameroff still fights to preserve some semblance of a brain/consciousness connection. Scientists cannot entirely let go of a belief.

They can only chip away at it until nothing is left, by which time a new generation comes along to say, in essence, “the sun does not revolve around the earth.”

“Because [when] you look inside neurons, you see all these microtubules, and they’re in a periodic lattice, which is perfect for information processing and vibrations,” Hameroff stated.

Due to their properties, microtubules function like antennas. Hameroff says they serve as “quantum devices” to transduce consciousness from a quantum dimension.

British physicist, mathematician, and Nobel Laureate Sir Roger Penrose and Hameroff hypothesized a theory that quantum processes generate consciousness.

Quantum refers to tiny units of energy or matter at a microscopic level. Its unique features can help us understand many things that current science cannot explain.

As does black magic and religion. That, in fact, is the foundation of religion — explaining what science cannot explain.

In simple terms, microtubules act as a bridge between the quantum world and our consciousness. They take quantum signals, amplify them, organize them, and somehow, through processes we don’t fully understand, turn them into the feelings, perceptions, and thoughts that make up our conscious awareness.

Somehow. Somehow. Somehow.

Microtubules can explain bewildering facts about the brain. Hameroff posits that the brains of individuals born with hydrocephalus can adapt as their microtubules control neuroplasticity and reorganize their brain tissue.

“So over time, the microtubules in that brain adapt and rearrange themselves to sustain consciousness and cognition,” he said.

Other scientists are also using alternative quantum theories to explain mental activities. A study published in Physical Review E shows that vibrations in lipid molecules within the myelin sheath can create pairs of quantum-entangled photons.

It suggests that this quantum entanglement may help synchronize brain activity, providing insights into consciousness.

It’s like this. We don’t understand quantum entanglement, and we don’t understand consciousness, so maybe one causes the other.

We also don’t understand God, so perhaps we should throw Him (Her, It) into the mix and completely depart from science.

“Rather than a computer of simple neurons, the brain is a quantum orchestra,” Hameroff described, “Because you have resonances and harmony and solutions over different frequencies, much like you do in music. And [so] I think consciousness is more like music than it is a computation.”

Hey, why not? If we don’t understand microtubules or entangled protons, why not music?

Science is always evolving. The study of consciousness is still an area of active research and debate in neuroscience and philosophy. However, each new discovery opens up new possibilities. As we continue to explore these mysteries, let’s remain curious and open-minded.

Open-minded, but not empty-minded. Tossing out WAGs (Wild Ass Guesses) isn’t exactly science.

Let’s return to what we can agree on. Whatever consciousness is, it relates to sensing stimuli. When in daily parlance we speak of a person not being conscious, the belief is that person is not reacting to stimuli.

He (she, it) can’t see, hear, feel, smell, or taste, or at least not report on any of those senses. But we know an “unconscious” person has processes that continue. Administer an electric shock, and his leg will jump, so at least the muscles in his leg are conscious—probably his entire body.

His body reacts to outside stimuli, though perhaps one tiny portion of his brain doesn’t communicate what we call awareness.

When I am sleeping, the line between awareness and unawareness is blurry. I sense sounds and touch, which is why you can wake me by shouting or shaking me.

Let’s take it down a bit:

The Fascinating Complex Minds of Bees and Why They Matter
Research shows bees are profoundly intelligent beings with very active brains.
Posted July 23, 2022 | Reviewed by Vanessa Lancaster

he question of whether bees are conscious is fascinating. Recent research suggests that bees exhibit behaviors that imply a form of consciousness. For instance, bees can recognize human faces, count, use tools, and even show signs of emotions.

They also demonstrate self-awareness and the ability to learn new tasks. 

Bees even play games, just for fun.

While bees’ brains are much simpler than human brains, containing about a million neurons compared to our 86 billion3, these complex behaviors indicate that bees might have a rudimentary form of consciousness.

A group of prominent biologists and philosophers announced a new consensus: There’s “a realistic possibility” that insects, octopuses, crustaceans, fish and other overlooked animals experience consciousness.

OK, we’re down to other animals even paramecium – animal-like protists- which “swim, avoid obstacles, mate, and, significantly—learn—without having a single synapse or being part of a neural network.

What is the commonality among all animals?

They sense. How do we know? Because they react to outside stimuli.

OK, what about plants. Are they conscious?

When I asked the AI Copilot that question, it answered:

While plants exhibit sophisticated behaviors and can respond to their environment in remarkable ways, they do not have brains or nervous systems comparable to those of animals.

Some researchers argue that plants might have a form of “plant cognition,” which allows them to adapt and respond to stimuli in ways that seem intelligent.

For example, plants can send warning signals to other parts of themselves when damaged and produce chemicals to deter predators.

They also send these warning signals to other plants and to animals, which receive, interpret, and send signals back to plants.

However, most scientists agree that plants do not possess consciousness as we understand it.

There’s that science focus on a brain, or lack thereof, again.

Consciousness typically involves subjective experiences and awareness, which require a complex nervous system and brain.

Because AI simply gathers information, it spews out the old “consciousness-is-in-the-brain” hypothesis, which doesn’t recognize game-playing bees, much less paramecium, those swimming, obstacle-avoiding mating, and learning creatures as being conscious.

Where do they draw the line? Can only humans be conscious? Or, more reasonably, can all living things have some element of consciousness.

What is the common element for human, other animal, and plant consciousness? Reacting to stimuli. 

That’s all a “conscious” person does.

When you “see,” photons reflect off objects and pass through the cornea, which refracts the light. The photons then go through the lens, which further focuses the light onto the retina, which contains rods and cones.

These photoreceptors convert light into electrochemical signals that travel along the optic nerve to the visual cortex in the brain, which processes these signals and interprets them as images.

It’s all electro-mechanical. There is no magic. It’s just photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., doing what they are stimulated to do, which gives us an illusion we term “consciousness.”

All those electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., were created from pure energy.

All things that exist must have a beginning, so if consciousness exists, where does it begin?

Does it begin with the human brain? With a game–playing, mating insect’s brain. With a brainless paramecium? With a tree sending, receiving, and interpreting signals from other plants and animals?

With a rock that expands, contracts, or moves because of wind, rain, heat, cold, and vibrations? With a photon that responds to other photons and other quantum particles? Where is that bright line between consciousness and non-consciousness?

I submit there is no such line and that searching for it is a fool’s errand based on anthropomorphism, the belief that we are an example for everything.

We may be special or even superior in a few ways, but we are not unique, and consciousness is not a unique attribute of anything.

All we do is react to stimuli, just as everything in the universe does. That is consciousness.

The more sophisticated our reaction, the greater is our consciousness.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;
MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;
https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Source: https://mythfighter.com/2024/09/30/is-a-rock-conscious/