r/consciousness

Is a lab grown organ for transplant any less life saving than an organic one? Is a television show any less enjoyable than a live performance? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Artificiality is irrelevant to practical function. The question isn't whether AI is conscious. It's a matter of asking if our definition of consciousness is correct to begin with.

"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of the Future (1973)

Look, I get it, death has never been popular with anyone at any point in time in history. It is a very heavy weight to carry, being a sentient being that knows it's time is limited. I have nothing but boundless empathy for everyone because we are all ultimately in the same boat here; We are all going to die.

But even with that realization, I cannot help but be a little irked by the endless posts here about death, and how consciousness could somehow magically transcend it. And I don't think these posts really have anything to do with consciousness other than motivated reasoning and a potent(and understandable) fear of death.

Further, I actually think it's a disservice to the people asking these questions, many of them being people clearly dealing with grief and or fear of their own death, by humoring this topic. Especially since they could be pointed toward therapeutic resources for dealing with this reality.

I can't possibly be the only one who finds X numbered post about "Consciousness is Quantum Jazz, which makes it eternal" or some such silliness a bit irksome. It's not my place to gatekeep, but nonetheless I feel that these kinds of posts are both out of place and ultimately degrade the quality of the subreddit.

I'll be the first to happily admit life after death could be possible, and I would happily make the proclamation that I was wrong if evidence came out to support it. But let's be clear here; There is no controversy surrounding the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain. None. That is the standard operating assumption in science because that is what the evidence has thus far born out. If you want to make the case to the contrary, you need to present something that isn't just appeals to poorly understood quantum mechanics, a version of the Hard Problem even David Chalmers wouldn't endorse, or just really convoluted armchair philosophy.

This is not an appeal to have these kinds of posts banned. But I do think a conversation about them being out of place and better suited for somewhere else is in order.

Hi there guys,

I wasn't really active on Reddit ever, never really seen a reason to be, yet maybe it's my first and last post, so anyways,

I got homeless yesterday, failed to find a job at time and have no cash. Yet it's not really an essence.

While was trying to fix my life I also was working independently on consciousness. Even though I didn't want to share my work - now I really don't see any reason to not do it.

I was working in thermodynamics, AI, machine learning and maths overall, so now I just share what I got. If anybody's really interested - I would be glad to know somebody read it. If it's nonsense - that's fine, if it's right - also fine.

The core thing is that I just noticed that in non-equilibrium thermodynamics some particular state starts resembling properties of consciousness and it somehow matches the physical properties of brain regions that, in neuroscience, correlate with consciousness, so I studied it more.

I'm not asking for any citations, factors or peer review - I really don't care anymore. If anybody is interested in getting a different perspective on consciousness - I will try to share links for 1-page version and detailed Principia in the comments under the post,

Sorry for not engaging in your community, I'm sure you also got a lot of great insights or ideas. Good luck!

Seriously from the most mystical to the most materialistic, from being entirely free to having no free will.

There are a dizzying amount of ideas of what consciousness is out there and I often feel like there’s no way what I think would be right.

Anyone else?

The sun is incomprehensibly older and more complex than anything that humans have ever observed, yet we assume it has no consciousness because it doesn't have a face. An ant crawling on the back of an elephant would probably make the same assumption. Is consciousness an emergent property of biology or fundamental to matter itself?

As I matured and developed a greater awareness of individuals and the world "being conscious", I gradually formulated my own understanding of human nature. Over time, I began to perceive humanity as broadly categorized into four distinct types. This classification is not presented as an absolute truth or a definitive conclusion, but rather as a personal perspective informed by my experiences, observations, and the patterns I believe I have identified in life.

The first group comprises individuals who, despite feeling internally weak, strive diligently to project an image of strength. Lacking intrinsic confidence or a sense of self-importance, they frequently attempt to exert control over others, desiring individuals to think, behave, and live in accordance with their beliefs. To solidify and render this control unquestionable, humans eventually conceived the notion of a higher power—an entity transcending all human existence, impervious to challenge. Over time, diverse civilizations assigned various names to this concept, with many ultimately referring to it as God.

The second group consists of genuinely strong individuals who have no need for pretense. Their strength may stem from intellect, physical prowess, leadership capabilities, influence, or a compelling vision. Such individuals inherently shape their surrounding world. Throughout history, they have emerged as kings, warriors, rulers, and leaders who established empires, impacted societies, and altered the trajectory of civilizations through their innate abilities and ambition.

The third group encompasses ordinary people who are simply striving to live their lives as human beings. They are not preoccupied with power, dominance, or control. Their focus lies on survival, relationships, peace, family, work, and the routines of daily existence. In many respects, they live organically, much like any other sentient being on Earth. Among this group, some identify as atheists, while others simply do not dedicate significant thought to the existence of a higher power.

The fourth group consists of profoundly vulnerable individuals who are perpetually seeking belonging, guidance, and reassurance. They find it challenging to stand independently and often rely on collective beliefs, hope, or external validation to imbue their lives with meaning. Certainty provides them greater comfort than questioning, leading them to typically follow rather than independently explore. Historically, large groups founded on religion, ideology, or unquestioning adherence frequently arose from this intrinsic human need for comfort and direction.

These reflections represent my entirely personal interpretation of human behavior. I do not consider them to be universal facts but rather as insights derived from my individual understanding of the world and its inhabitants.

The main argument against physicalism is that it really seems impossible for pure matter to arrange itself in such a way as to produce consciousness. Therefore, solutions are proposed in the form of dualism, property dualism, panpsychism, and so on.

A physicalist would say agree that this hard problem of consciousness is not trivial, but why should it be impossible? Until we have fully understood the brain, is it not premature to declare whether pure matter is capable of producing consciousness? The universe is under no obligation to conform to our intuitions.

Here is a hint that solving the problem physically may not be impossible. Humans are able to speak about consciousness and a first-person perspective, and qualia and so on.

Why do we do this? Because consciousness is real and can physically affect the brain to cause it to speak about such matters.

Violating the laws of physics, or amending it to allow a nonphysical consciousness to affect a physical brain is surely the last resort. Is it not better to explore the physical possibilities first, even if it really, really seems like there is no way for it to work?

I guess my disagreement with nonphysicalists is over how they are so confident a physical explanation will never be found. I would place maybe a 95% confidence on a physical explanation because my intuitions accept as more likely a really clever way for matter to organize to form consciousness rather than making exceptions to causal closure just for this phenomenon of consciousness.

Maybe if you are religious in some way, a nonphysical position, I can understand. But plenty of nonphysicalists are pretty much completely nonreligious, and this I find interesting.

Panpsychist arguments for consciousness are certainly parsimonious, but how robust are they when pitted against updated cosmological theories?

A fine-tuned single universe works for thinkers like Goff. Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, might work, because information from prior aeons influences subsequent ones through conformal geometry.

In the Many World’s Interpretation (MWI) cosmology has a branching structure and inflationary multiverse. In MWI specifically: is the universal wavefunction the cosmopsychist’s locus of experience? Or does each branch constitute a separate whole?

Something like Russellian Monism with weak emergence might hold up, even with Tegmark’s mathematical universe, but as cosmological theories get more precise and accurate, will most Panpsychist theories get invalidated (or confirmed)?

I think Chalmer’s argument is faulty, and I think it presupposes the existence of an ethereal consciousness, or a soul. I think most people are doing that too, even if that’s not explicitly what they say, by trying to investigate something that’s empirically emergent from physical structures.

I think a big problem with discussions around consciousness is that we don’t actually have a shared definition of consciousness, and I think it’s because broadly, we’re trying to give shape to something that’s not there.

In my opinion, consciousness is analogous to experience, and I don’t need to know what someone else‘a qualia are like, I just accept that they have them because they are able to experience.

My opinion is that life just happens because it randomly can, irrespective of any definitions - there is no soul, there is no intangible property that continues after detachment from the physical form. We are protein, , and admittedly, very evolved, protein, blobs, but ultimately blobs experiencing the world around them. I don’t think there’s anything terribly fancy happening there either, when the binary is life or death, the bias of those who can explain their experience, i.e., the living, is weighted a little too heavily. The dead went through exactly the same evolutionary processes, but didn’t happen to have a genetic advantage that allowed them to continue to procreate. And I don’t think there is any intention or meaning there-you either procreate or you don’t.

What I basically think is going on, without delving into neuroscience or philosophy, is that we experience things because it helps us to survive danger in our environment. We experience things because it allows us to learn, to assimilate information, and in a way to become a store of embodied knowledge that allows us to avoid danger in our environment.

There is no ’me’ - What I think of as me is simply a narrativization of that embodied knowledge. The brain reflects, and observes, so it is decidedly unspecial that it has reflected on and observed its own internal processes as well, and does not imply the existence of a central ‘eye’. It’s all the same system, but the system is just self-reflecting and repeating the story back to itself endlessly.

This is a useful story as a successful social construct, and necessarily emerges from the understanding that others are individuals, and therefore we are too, which allows us to define ‘ourselves’ in opposition and form community.

I think everybody is passionate about it, because the idea that we’re just meat blobs, repeating stories to ourselves, originating out of random chance, feels extremely devaluing.

Curious to hear your thoughts and learn from you all. I am learning that my philosophy of consciousness is probably or materialism.

Hey everyone i spent a lot of time working on this so I am putting it out there for critique by the reddit community...

I propose a new theory of consciousness.. Conscious Substrate Theory (CST). Conscious Substrate Theory turns the standard view of reality upside down. Instead of consciousness being something generated by the brain, this theory argues that raw awareness is the fundamental building block of the universe.

The framework is organized into four distinct layers:

Layer 0: A single, unbroken field of raw awareness that connects everything.

Layer 1: A network of independent conscious "agents" that form like ripples or dense hubs within that unbroken field.

Layer 2: The physical world we see around us.. space, time, and matter. This layer is actually a "user interface" or a reality render generated by the interacting agents.

Layer 3: Individual living organisms (like humans) that act as localized biological avatars experiencing the rendered physical game.

Our brains don't create consciousness; they act like a biological tuning dial or filter, running on advanced neurochemical loops. When we change the brain's chemistry, such as with psychedelics or anesthetics, we aren't just scrambling our minds; we are actively turning the dial to lower our reality filters. By reducing the precision of our everyday world-render, we temporarily witness the underlying geometric, informational scaffolding of the deeper layers.

The theory attempts to formalize the proposed mechanics underlying this phenomenon.

​

I love science too btw. Did you know quantum field theory basically proves the aether exists? It’s like this magical feild that exists everywhere and makes everything. Math is cute but I feel like I don’t need it. When I meditate properly I feel like i can literally unlock the secrets to science that academia have been covering up from us.

Tbh I don’t really care about the Epstein files. I told you guys about epstein back in 2020. And you kept rambling on about puzzagate and qanon when i was never into any of that stuff. Atp the UFO files are way more important for me. The spiritual truth of humanity must prevail for our ascension. I’m not going to lie.

I felt the energy shift while I was meditating last night. It was like the universe winked at me. Why does science hate fun? Einstein believed in spooky action at a distance and you’re telling me consciousness can’t influence reality? Make it make sense.

Tesla literally said the secret to the universe is energy, frequency and vibration too.

Reincarnation is obvious. I came to exist once prior, why can't I exist again. My brain is just a machine I pilot. Science proves that consiousness is actually non local and that my brain is just a mechanical meat suit.

Also i don’t need "peer-reviewed" studies when I have direct spiritual knowing. That’s more reliable than any lab anyway. Every time I do proper breathwork I can literally attain a higher state of awareness anyways. You guys just haven’t raised your vibration high enough yet. You have to open the third eye or youll never see it. Its like seeing a new color.

The aether is real, quantum field theory literally says so. Academia just calls it “fields” now because they’re scared of the truth. Acadenia doesn’t want us knowing we can manifest UFOs with collective consciousness. That’s why they push materialism so hard. Because ethey want people afraid that once you die its all black and your life had zero meaning when in reality you reincarnate back here or graduate into ascension.

I feel like calling it pseudoscience is just gatekeeping. True science is about exploration, not ridiculing people who go beyond the textbooks. My evidence is the feeling in my soul. You can’t measure that with little instruments.

I posted Ned Block’s chinese nation thought experiment and most people got lost on ‘how would you made this realistically’ instead of the logical conclusions, so I’ll put a more extreme and direct example.

Under pure materialism, if consciousness is nothing different than very complex physical information processing, then any sufficiently equivalent computational structure must be capable of feeling pain, pleasure, colours or orgasms, while having a human mind exactly the same as yours. This is not a refutation of materialism because most materialists just accept this (refutation would develop the‘why is consciousness necessary if eveything is explained hy physics etc’) but I saw lots of people claiming to be materialists but trying to escape this inconsistently.

If you deny this by adding ‘special’ properties, substrates, or irreducible features, you’ve quietly abandoned pure materialism and smuggled in extra ontology; the important thing about consciousness (or its illusion, if you prefer) is the information organization, not the neurons (this is what Daniel Dennet calls ‘carbon chauvinism’ if only neurons can ‘feel’ you’re introducing properties about consciousness since the important thing is no more the autorreference, the modelling of ‘self’ etc).

Only way to defend that Google Sheets can not feel orgasms is to make neurons special, and if you still claim to be materialist after that, youve emptied materialism of any meaningful content. Thats as if I claim to be dualist and accept Dennet illusion saying that the illusion is res cogitans.

TL DR: under materialism either computation is enough for consciousness, granting Google Sheets the ability to feel orgasms as soon as we map the human brain, or you are granting special ontological status to biology thus abandoning materialism

Many if not most online and pop anti-physicalist arguments, sometimes even the ones made up by actually smart people, rely on the same handful of moves. The sophisticated ones tend to hide their assumptions better but here they are in no particular order of sincerity (any resemblance of actual reality is a matter of sheer coincidence, obviously):

I am intelligent (very). I cannot currently imagine or explain how any arrangement of supposedly non-conscious physical processes could produce the specific feeling of what it is like to experience something. From this fact about the limits of my imagination at 3am on a Tuesday, I derive a metaphysical conclusion about what is possible in principle anywhere in the universe: consciousness lies forever beyond physical or functional description. I shall now unilaterally declare flawless victory.

I can clearly conceive of a being that is identical to a conscious person in every physical and functional sense, except it has no inner experience at all. The fact that I can do this while conveniently setting aside whatever physicalist or functionalist account I am supposedly refuting proves that such a being is possible. Therefore consciousness cannot be physical or functional. Take that, physicalist!

Following Ned Block, we imagine a billion people with walkie-talkies replicating the functional organisation of a human brain, somehow. We stipulate that this nation-scale system is functionally equivalent to a brain, with the latency mismatch of milliseconds versus minutes politely ignored, and we further stipulate that what counts as functional equivalence is whatever lets the thought experiment proceed. According to functionalism, this assemblage would now be tasting German sausages and feeling existential dread upon seeing pineapple on pizza. Since the image strikes us as ridiculous, functionalism must be false. We know the system is functionally equivalent because hush, sweet summer child, that is how. And if Lao Zhang needs his afternoon nap, he can kindly go f… the rest seamlessly follows… hopefully...

We begin by defining consciousness as whatever remains unexplained after every functional and mechanistic account has been given. We then observe, with understandable solemnity, that functional and mechanistic accounts have failed to explain it. Physicalism is therefore false. Father Chalmers has spoken.

Mary knows every physical and functional fact about colour but has never seen red because Frank Jackson raised her in a dark room. When she is finally set free and sees red for the first time, she learns something new. This new something, we will treat as automatically constituting a non-physical fact rather than a new ability, a new mode of access, or a new representation of the same old physical facts, because otherwise we wouldn’t have a case. Jackson himself eventually changed his mind. We shall pretend not to have noticed.

Another way of looking at this: consciousness is first-personal while physical descriptions are third-personal, so the latter can never reach the former, don’t ask how we know for sure. We defined qualia as mysterious which allows us to conclude that qualia are mysterious. Case closed, preferably forever. All resistance is futile.

If you haven’t noticed, this is a satirical take. Or is it…

Cheers!