# Is Consciousness an Effect or Something Else? **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy of Mind\ **Created:** [September 15, 2026, 2:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089 "2026-09-15T14:50:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 2:25am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/81 "2026-09-21T02:25:17Z")
If you can tell me why you posted that video, what point it make, I will decide whether to view it. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 3:15am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/82 "2026-09-21T03:15:31Z")
It bears on what you posted. Do you think it’s irrelevant? ---
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 3:31am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/83 "2026-09-21T03:31:19Z")
I would prefer a synopsis. ---
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 4:22am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/84 "2026-09-21T04:22:50Z")
I will look I’m busy here with house stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 4:51am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/85 "2026-09-21T04:51:28Z")
Watched a bit. Annoying sound, like banking queue hold music. And, so what? 🤨 ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 6:03am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/86 "2026-09-21T06:03:33Z")
Are you serious? It’s one of those technology demos - a very popular practice - and they’ve created a stop-motion animation by moving individual atoms of some substance. Do you see a relevance to our conversation? ---
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 7:25am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/87 "2026-09-21T07:25:26Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Do you see a relevance to our conversation? It’s more a matter of what relevance do you see to it? I’m not, and Werner Heisenberg was not, casting doubt on the **existence** of atoms. But Heisenberg’s quote casts doubt on the idea of the atom as being an ultimately-existing particle. And he was one of the architects of quantum theory. (That is taken from his book Physics and Philosophy published in the 1950’s). ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 7:29am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/88 "2026-09-21T07:29:30Z")
Then it’s irrelevant. I’m myself uncertain, but the video shows we can move atoms around to produce a movie. Perhaps it’s because I didn’t get enough rest. Apologies. 🥴 ---
**Author:** ![Gnomon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71e660/32.png) [@Gnomon](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Gnomon)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 4:02pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/89 "2026-09-21T16:02:14Z")
> [@Wayfarer](#): > > : what if consciousness is a **causal** as much as **consequential**? Since I have no formal training in Philosophy, my conjectures about Consciousness are based more on scientific evidence than philosophical speculation. Nevertheless, both approaches converge on similar conclusions. In my amateur _Enformationism_ thesis, human sentience is a belated evolutionary consequence from the Energy (Bang) and Information (Laws, initial conditions) of the Cosmic birthday 14B Sol-years ago. 🙂 > [@Wayfarer](#): > > in the realm of the lifeless, **form** is the accident and **matter** the substance — form is just a temporary configuration of enduring particles. But in the living organism this relationship is inverted: matter becomes the **accident** , form the **essence**. The material contents are phases of development for **the self-continuation of the form** , not the other way around. In the 20th century, scientists (and communication engineers) began to discern a relationship between meaningful Information and causal Energy (or Entropy). The inverse relationship that Shannon discovered, can now be reversed : Entropy (random accident) destroys _Form_ (pattern, information) ; so it’s transforming Energy (negentropy; my positive term _Enformy_) that arranges things into meaningful and useful patterns **1**. Materialism assumed, without evidence, that physical Matter possessed some latent creative power that eventually emerged as meta-physical Consciousness. But if you focus on the creative Essence instead of the malleable Clay, then it’s apparent that Potential for Sentience has been developing from the beginning (“self continuation”). That’s assuming the continuum was not interrupted by divine intervention. So, the Hard Question becomes how & why did the Bang of Creation result in the Consequence of Consciousness? Who put the Cosmic Potential in the Primeval Atom? Who put the Sentience in the Singularity? Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong? Now, in the 21st century, the equation of creative Causation and imaginative Consciousness has become more obvious, as scientists reveal the essential relationship between Causal Energy and Conscious Information **2**. 😀 . **1. Negentropy** _directly offsets entropy by introducing order, information, and energy into a system to prevent its decline._ [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=negentropy+offsets+entropy](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=negentropy+offsets+entropy) **2.** INFORMATION IS ENERGY Positive relation between Meaning (Mind) and Causation (Change). ![Information is Energy](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/uploads/thephilosophyforum/original/2X/7/799764ca6690ddff1fa34af5925d1f43eec5e251.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![noAxioms](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/noaxioms/32/658_2.png) [@noAxioms](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/noAxioms)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 9:05pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/90 "2026-09-21T21:05:47Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > Do they mention anything about consciousness? What is the nature of human consciousness according to their theory? That’s like asking what relativity says about it. Neither are theories of human consciousness. > [@Corvus](#): > > The world looks chaos at times to anyone when observing some events happening in the universe I think you’re using a different definition of ‘chaos’, like my family room floor is currently in a state of chaos. Chaos theory isn’t about ‘not neat and orderly’. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 9:39pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/91 "2026-09-21T21:39:23Z")
> [@noAxioms](#): > > That’s like asking what relativity says about it. Neither are theories of human consciousness. Yes, that was exactly my point. You brought up chaos theorists into the discussion in this topic. It is natural response to check if they said anything about consciousness, since the OP is about consciousness. If not, then it would be necessary to ask you why you brought in chaos theory into the discussion. > [@noAxioms](#): > > I think you’re using a different definition of ‘chaos’, like my family room floor is currently in a state of chaos. Chaos theory isn’t about ‘not neat and orderly’. I was using the ordinary definition of chaos. So what is the definition of chaos in chaos theory? How is it relevant to consciousness? ---
**Author:** ![noAxioms](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/noaxioms/32/658_2.png) [@noAxioms](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/noAxioms)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 10:18pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/92 "2026-09-21T22:18:51Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > You brought up chaos theorists into the discussion in this topic. .. to illustrate that a given effect has multiple causes, which is something often forgotten. The comment was in answer to a question by you which did not mention consciousness at all. > [@Corvus](#): > > So what is the definition of chaos in chaos theory? Differences in initial condition, no matter how small, causing macroscopic differences in the state of certain systems. Consciousness needs definition to assess applicability. Concerning consciousness then: Under naturalism, it is both chaotic and not. As a closed system, consciousness exhibits pretty much zero chaotic behavior since all the components are designed to elicit consistent effects from mildly varying initial conditions. As an open system, it is very chaotic since the environment is chaotic in nature, and consciousness by nature reacts to its environment. In these regards, consciousness exhibits the same behavior as a computer. Under supernaturalism, there is no model, so the applicability of a mathematical theory is inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2026, 11:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/93 "2026-09-21T23:29:00Z")
> [@noAxioms](#): > > .. to illustrate that a given effect has multiple causes, which is something often forgotten. The comment was in answer to a question by you which did not mention consciousness at all. I have already argued and concluded that consciousness is a capacity to be able to interact intelligibly with others and the world, and being conscious means a descriptive phrase denoting the mental state for the capacity of an agent. I also defined causality doesn’t exist in the world, but it is a product of your mind connecting one event followed by another by habit and custom, as Hume claimed. Hence saying that events having multiple causes is irrelevant in my book. > [@noAxioms](#): > > As an open system, it is very chaotic since the environment is chaotic in nature, and consciousness by nature reacts to its environment. > In these regards, consciousness exhibits the same behavior as a computer. OK fair enough. But it sounds unclear and muddled guff. Need more clarity on its claims. If you list some real world cases examples in the description, it could have more clarity. The environment is chaotic in nature? There are also very logical nature too. In what sense it is chaotic? Consciousness exhibits the same behaviour as computer? No consciousness is just a mental state of agents. Computer is a tool to do jobs and works. How can they exhibit same behaviour? ---
**Author:** ![John](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/john/32/665_2.png) [@John](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/John)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2026, 1:40am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/94 "2026-09-22T01:40:01Z")
I undertsnd what you are getting at, but I still think “counterfactual” is the wrong word. Sometimes we have efficient or mechanical causation, and other times we have sets of conditions which bring about changes. Actually even in the case where it seems clear that there is an efficient cause for some effect, there still must be a set of conditions within which that cause operates, or so it seems to me. ---
**Author:** ![BrightCanyon98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f08c70/32.png) [@BrightCanyon98](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BrightCanyon98)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2026, 4:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/95 "2026-09-22T16:38:17Z")
> I undertsnd what you are getting at, but I still think “counterfactual” is the wrong word. Sometimes we have efficient or mechanical causation, and other times we have sets of conditions which bring about changes. Actually even in the case where it seems clear that there is an efficient cause for some effect, there still must be a set of conditions within which that cause operates, or so it seems to me. Do you agree that some effects can epiphenomenal? ---
**Author:** ![noAxioms](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/noaxioms/32/658_2.png) [@noAxioms](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/noAxioms)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2026, 6:01pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/96 "2026-09-22T18:01:28Z")
> [@John](#): > > Sometimes we have efficient or mechanical causation, and other times we have sets of conditions which bring about changes. Aristotle’s whole material/formal/efficient/final cause thing seems only applicable to deliberately created objects, not to say actions. An action isn’t made of material, even if it involves change of material state (people seeking shelter in the shade). An action has no shape, no necessary agency (most objects also are not made by an agent), nor purpose. All that said, I agree with your comment about counterfactual being the wrong word, and that shadows can be the cause of something. > [@BrightCanyon98](#): > > Do you agree that some effects can epiphenomenal? Not asked of me, but by definition, anything epiphenomenal is only an effect, a sort of one-way causal relation. My seeing red cannot cause any subsequent physical effect such as being able to speak of it for instance. It’s sort of an end to a causal chain so to speak. It’s why epiphenomenalism is wrong by definition. If true, you could not posit it. There can be evidence for it, but no way to present the evidence. This is similar to positing an afterlife: If true, I can prove it, but only to myself, not to others. > [@Corvus](#): > > I also defined causality doesn’t exist in the world Alright then. The other questions are irrelevant then. Does that mean there are no effects? The whole topic is trivially answered if you define away the primary terms. > [@Corvus](#): > > The environment is chaotic in nature? Well, probably not if causality doesn’t exist. Chaotic behavior utilizes a model where states evolve from prior states. ---
**Author:** ![BrightCanyon98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f08c70/32.png) [@BrightCanyon98](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BrightCanyon98)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2026, 6:46pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/97 "2026-09-22T18:46:04Z")
> [@noAxioms](#): > > Not asked of me, but by definition, anything epiphenomenal is only an effect, a sort of one-way causal relation. My seeing red cannot cause any subsequent physical effect such as being able to speak of it for instance. It’s sort of an end to a causal chain so to speak. > It’s why epiphenomenalism is wrong by definition. If true, you could not posit it. There can be evidence for it, but no way to present the evidence. This is similar to positing an afterlife: If true, I can prove it, but only to myself, not to others. So, you feel pain when touching a hot stove and pull back your hand, but the quale of pain is not the reason you pulled back your hand. You pulled back your hand because the neural correlates of pain triggered that response in your brain. Afterwards you tell someone how painful it was, but while you did feel pain, as an epiphenomenal effect you aren’t able to share this information with them. But, your brain is able to imagine pain and record this image of pain, which is the experience you share with them. Just by sharing this image they grab their hand and feel that image as part of their imagination. Why? Because natural selection favors pain imagery-talk because it is an evolutionary advantage for our species to communicate effective reasons to avoid pain. Why do we feel this pain if it’s epiphenomenal? Explicit imagery might just have this feature. The imagery is so real that it projects the actual experience. Is this a likely explanation? I don’t think so, but it is metaphysically possible. ---
**Author:** ![noAxioms](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/noaxioms/32/658_2.png) [@noAxioms](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/noAxioms)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2026, 10:34pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/98 "2026-09-22T22:34:19Z")
> [@BrightCanyon98](#): > > You pulled back your hand because the neural correlates of pain triggered that response in your brain. For one, pain and neural correlates are the same thing to me, but not the same thing to a dualist. Secondly, pulling my hand back is a reflex since it takes too long for the signals to get to the brain, processed, and back. I did that recently, touching a hot grille grate with the back of a finger, yanking it back immediately. Only seconds later did I realize the pain was wrong and the reflex wasn’t enough. Some sauce stuck to me, which I didn’t lick off for probably 3 whole seconds, resulting in my first 2nd-degree burn in quite a while. > [@BrightCanyon98](#): > > but while you did feel pain, as an epiphenomenal effect you aren’t able to share this information with them. This seems to be our disconnect. You’re using ‘epiphenomenal’ to convey one’s inability to describe a subjective experience in a non-subjective manner. So color-blind Mary cannot know what the experience of red is despite being a complete expert on the subject. Only the bat can know what it’s like to be a bat. This isn’t epiphenomenal, since you do remember the experience (and not just the verbal description) and that **causes** you to be more careful next time. If it was epiphenomenal, it couldn’t have that effect. And I’ve very much learned to avoid doing things that cause negative experiences, so those experiences cannot be epiphenomenal. > [@BrightCanyon98](#): > > Why? Because natural selection favors pain imagery-talk because it is an evolutionary advantage for our species to communicate effective reasons to avoid pain. Creatures have evolved to avoid pain waaaay before there were things talking about it. That’s why pain evolved in the first place: A creature that felt it was far more fit than one that didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![John](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/john/32/665_2.png) [@John](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/John)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2026, 10:37pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/99 "2026-09-22T22:37:57Z")
> [@BrightCanyon98](#): > > Do you agree that some effects can epiphenomenal? Can you give an example of an epiphenomenal effect? > [@noAxioms](#): > > Aristotle’s whole material/formal/efficient/final cause thing seems only applicable to deliberately created objects, not to say actions. An action isn’t made of material, even if it involves change of material state (people seeking shelter in the shade). An action has no shape, no necessary agency (most objects also are not made by an agent), nor purpose. > All that said, I agree with your comment about counterfactual being the wrong word, and that shadows can be the cause of something. I didn’t have Aristotle in mind. I just wanted to point out that efficient or proximal causes are sometimes (now that I think more about it, probably always) accompanied by sets of conditions that make the causal action possible. ---
**Author:** ![BrightCanyon98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f08c70/32.png) [@BrightCanyon98](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BrightCanyon98)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2026, 1:24am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089/100 "2026-09-23T01:24:33Z")
> [@noAxioms](#): > > This isn’t epiphenomenal, since you do remember the experience (and not just the verbal description) and that **causes** you to be more careful next time. If it was epiphenomenal, it couldn’t have that effect. And I’ve very much learned to avoid doing things that cause negative experiences, so those experiences cannot be epiphenomenal. (I’m speaking in terms of metaphysical possibility and not what I personally think is the case.} The neurons could hold a very detailed imagery of what we experience as a painful experience and that’s what has the causal overtones and not the experience itself. Why do we remember being actually in pain (i.e., having the quale of pain)? It could be that this imagery is always enough to re-elicit to some degree the previous experience like a flashback. This is not dualism per se since the quale of pain really is epiphenomenal in that everything recorded in the neurons electrically and chemically drives the reactions. Full dualism would require that the quale experience is sufficient in itself to cause physical changes in the brain which is not the case. So, it’s not really dualism but rather epiphenomenalism. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089.md?page=4) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/is-consciousness-an-effect-or-something-else/3089.md?page=6)