Our brain is undoubtedly a reaction machine. But there’s a more appropriate word to describe this process: response to signals. Consciousness, however, is traditionally defined as the phenomenon that distinguishes a being awake and aware of the world from one asleep or in a coma. It’s not simply a response, but a specific level of response that isn’t detectable in all organisms or at every moment of their lives.
That’s the consciousness that humans have. My post is arguing fundamentally consciousness is reaction, and reaction is possessed by all things.
But the thing is at some level I think a sunflower is conscious. They don’t reflect, or speak, but they react to their environment. If you then extrapolate this thinking, then so is an electron. Obviously, they aren’t conscious in the same way a human is. My post isn’t meant to just be redefining things, what I’m trying to do is explain the unifying phenomena that allows for consciousness, and it seems that it is possessed by all things in our universe.
1 Like
Just because multicellular organisms are living beings doesn’t mean all living beings are multicellular.
Similarly, in this case, just because consciousness is one type of reaction doesn’t mean every reaction is consciousness.
I don’t get what you are trying to show here. My post isn’t deriving this from logic. My post is a physical prediction about the nature of consciousness.
I think this point was brought up earlier, but if the notion of “consciousness” here is fundamentally just equivalent to physical reactivity, then nobody would disagree that things are conscious in the way OP frames it. If I pass a magnet close to a ferromagnetic material like iron, the mass of iron will “react” by being drawn to the magnet. I suppose we could describe the iron mass as having a “will” to move toward the magnet. Does it know that the magnet is drawing it in? Is it “aware”?
I still think having a some means of accumulating memory is a precondition for awareness. The act of reflecting on ones circumstances is an act which happens over some non-zero duration of time. If a glucose molecule at one femtosecond cannot recall that it was the same glucose molecule a femtosecond before, it’s not really able to “experience” the process of being transported or metabolized.
Yeah, I think memory is extremely important for the type of consciousness that we have because it allows for the creation of a continuous experience rather than some discrete and disconnected experience.
But people could disagree on what consciousness is. I don’t think I am just redefining terms. I am saying that consciousness does not just emerge from nonexistence, but that what we simply possess is more complex reactivity, and reactivity is possessed by all things. Fundamentally, our brains are nothing special. It is just a complex causal chain. An electron reacting with another electron is a very simple causal chain.
When using logic, it’s crucial to avoid logical fallacies. I saw a logical fallacy in your statement. Any consciousness can be called a reaction (if you really want to), but not every reaction can be called consciousness.
Can’t you see that by using a word in a sense it’s not meant to, you can easily confuse concepts without even realizing it?
That’s not the logic I am using, though 
I am saying that reaction is the basic unit of consciousness
You literally misquoted me to make it seem like I used logic incorrectly.
But you claim that everything is conscious, right? Everything is reactive—that would be more accurate. After all, not every single reaction can be interpreted as consciousness.
Consciousness is about reaction and understanding.
A sunflower seems to react and understand, the way is has a outer petal and central floret and pollen.
Then this is such a level of reaction when understanding becomes possible.
But I’m literally saying consciousness is fundamentally just reaction, so everything has consciousness, even if it’s primitive. If you want, we can argue about definitions, but I don’t really see the point. My post is just saying that consciousness does not emerge from nothing, because it is just reaction, and all things react. Some forms of consciousness could be categorized as more complex, as in humans, but all things possess the fundamental unit: reaction.
Reactions can be different. Some of them we call consciousness, and some we call differently. For example, we don’t call reflexes conscious reactions. Nor do we call deformations in response to a stimulus conscious reactions.
Physically I see no difference between a reflex and speaking a sentence. They are both reactions. We perceive them as some different kind of thing. Sure, they use different parts of the brain, but the idea that one is conscious and one isn’t is a human construct. My definition of consciousness is meant to strip away the subjective.
I guess the tricky point here is not only what qualifies as consciousness but also what qualifies as panpsychism. The materialistic and monistic interpretation of neuroscience already says that if we dissect the process of thought, we find action potentials, which are explained by voltage gradients, which are explained by the charge properties of sodium, potassium, phospholipids etc.
Ultimately, we can explain neural activity by building up from the way particles interact with each other. So is the case being presented in the original post that physicalist neuroscience is a sort of panpsychism, since the physical properties of particles are the fundamental ingredients which interact to produce neurochemistry?
It’s true that both are reactions. But it’s false to say that both are conscious reactions. People agreed to distinguish one from the other, which is why they began calling reflexes unconscious reactions and speech conscious reactions. You can’t simply replace the generally accepted and understood meaning with your own preference.