What Determines Consciousness? Could Everything Have It?

[TheReasonator]

Furthermore, could our experience of our selves as a single, unitary consciousness be just an illusion?

By mere existence I mean it could consist of only experiencing a signal sensory input, even if that input is forgotten forever after processing and responding to it. So I am using the broad definition of consciousness, it is not necessary to be able to reflect on one's experience, only to be having it in order to be conscious.

People tend to assume there are things which even though they receive inputs that they then react to are not conscious, even in this sense. But what is materially different about our own material structure and how we process information that would justify such a position?

Could it not be that all things that receive inputs and produce outputs in the Universe experience a form of consciousness? That consciousness is found in the smallest of particles, as for something not to take inputs and produce outputs would effectively render it non-existent for all practical purposes?

But aren't we different? Not in any way science can show, or if it can I haven't come across it and would like to see it. That we sometimes act according to things we've learned in the past wouldn't count, because even if you act according to things you learned in the past that's still responding to inputs, ones that the brain put into storage (memory) to be used later. Same for genetic information, that would likewise be another input.

And then think about the subconscious, and how some people experience multiple personality disorder and the distinct possibility that our experience of a unitary consciousness is just an illusion created by the interaction of the neurons (which we have no good reason to determine as nonconscious as they also act on inputs and outputs), and furthermore the interaction of the molecules in the neurons, primarily the DNA contained in the nucleus, and further down the interaction of individual atoms, and finally particles. More interactions are of course involved. Dark matter passes through the human body, as does radiation of various sorts, though our structure may work in a way that prevents their influence on our illusionary "unitary consciousness" or not, science still has some work to do to determine the role of dark matter in the Universe.

EDIT: Shoot, I forgot to fix this. I had meant to put "The Mere Existence of..." in the title, which would explain the line "by the mere existence of..."

But anyways that's what I'm going for, not the definition of consciousness, I'm asking what physical properties are responsible for it and I've already defined it for the purposes of the question: Merely being able to experience things, even if unremembered and even if it's the most simple, meaningless form of "experiencing things" possible.

[Stormwarden]

Hmm...I've been wondering myself if I'm a human who dreams I'm a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that it's a human. I swear I saw some God in a butterfly mask in my dreams, and I keep hearing this odd thing....

"I am thou, thou art I, thou art the key that unlocks the door..." (j/k)

On a serious note, it's an interesting question. One that warrants a lot of consideration given recent events.

[Osama bin Bambi]

What Determines Consciousness?

In my opinion, the ability of self-determination. A conscious being can make a choice, but an unconscious or non-sapient being can't.

Could Everything Have It?

No. This doesn't make any physical sense. Inanimate objects like rocks, etc. do not have the basic structures that create consciousness in sapient beings.

[TheReasonator]

What Determines Consciousness?

In my opinion, the ability of self-determination. A conscious being can make a choice, but an unconscious or non-sapient being can't.

And what accounts for our ability to choose that is lacking in other forms of matter and energy?

And if a person were disabled in such a way that they could only ever act on impulse and hence not having any real choice in anything but they were still perceiving all of this then according to "consciousness" as defined in my question they would still be conscious. Perhaps what I'm really wondering about is more appropriately labeled as "Perception" rather than "Consciousness"?
Or are you suggesting that such a scenario is impossible to occur while the person is still perceiving it?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

And what accounts for our ability to choose that is lacking in other forms of matter and energy?

It's what it does.

We are all made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium but get any of these elements separately and they'll never produce a Shakespeare play!

[TheReasonator]

And what accounts for our ability to choose that is lacking in other forms of matter and energy?

It's what it does.

We are all made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium but get any of these elements separately and they'll never produce a Shakespeare play!

But what physically is differently about their interactions in us compared to other things? What is the exact physical process that produces consciousness?

[Old Viking]

Basic consciousness was devised by a guy named Fred Grimshaw in Pierre, South Dakota.  He delegated the determination of an entity's degree of consciousness to a widow named Pauline Forbisher in Toms River, New Jersey.

There is no such forking thing as "multiple personality disorder." 

[JohnE]

What Determines Consciousness?

In my opinion, the ability of self-determination. A conscious being can make a choice, but an unconscious or non-sapient being can't.

But what does it really mean to make a choice? What we experience as making a choice is the various parts and particles of our bodies (including our brains) acting according to the laws of physics. It's a much more complex set of actions than, say, a rock rolling downhill because of gravity, but as far as anyone's been able to determine (that I'm aware of), no less governed by the laws of physics.

There may be some degree of quantum randomness involved in how our brains work (or maybe not), but whether determinism or randomness are responsible for the complex series of events that we perceive as choices, we're still just rocks choosing to roll downhill.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

And what accounts for our ability to choose that is lacking in other forms of matter and energy?

It's what it does.

We are all made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium but get any of these elements separately and they'll never produce a Shakespeare play!

But what physically is differently about their interactions in us compared to other things? What is the exact physical process that produces consciousness?

The  exact physical process I'm a little hazy on as I'm not a biologist specializing in neuroscience but I'd guess it's in the electrical and chemical interactions between all of those cells in our brains.

If you had something that had the same number of cells but they behaved differently, say like those in your gut or a houseplant or something then the interactions and activities of those cells would be different.

If you had something that had the same raw chemical elements but no living tissue like say, a large plastic statue of the Terminator then the chemical and electrical interactions between those elements would be a lot less complex and more predictable-unless you were really unlucky!

[mellenORL]

Information retention and processing - something brain cells do well. And it is a verb, a process, not  a noun.

On the quantum state level, yes, "information" exists, but more as a wave of infinitesimally small energy. Not consciousness, really. And what we see is reaction based in quantum law. Not processing, in the way organics process info.

I guess this also really involves the difficulty in defining consciousness, but to me, pretty much any living thing can process info about it's state and the environs it occupies, but other than reflexive or instinctual responses, only complex multicellular animal organisms can have a meaningfully defined consciousness; i.e. if they can learn and retain info, and react "based" on that, that's a pretty good framework on which to hang the consciousness concept.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

And what accounts for our ability to choose that is lacking in other forms of matter and energy?

It's what it does.

We are all made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium but get any of these elements separately and they'll never produce a Shakespeare play!

But what physically is differently about their interactions in us compared to other things? What is the exact physical process that produces consciousness?

Hold on.  Are you seriously trying to attribute consciousness to a single physical process?  Are you seriously trying to do that?  That's like trying to peg down a PC's function down to one mathematical operation!  Consciousness is a system, involving several different physical processes that together work to allow for learning and all that shit that other people in this thread have been talking about.

[JohnE]

As with most conversations about consciouness, we're running into the problem of people using different definitions. Some of us are using a funtional definition, based on whether a given entity can perform certain functions, and some of us are using an experiencial definition, based on whether a given entity experiences in the same sense we do (tough to put into words, this one).

When people are using different definitions and don't realize it, they end up arguing in circles. I've been there.

[Canadian Mojo]

As with most conversations about consciouness, we're running into the problem of people using different definitions. Some of us are using a funtional definition, based on whether a given entity can perform certain functions, and some of us are using an experiencial definition, based on whether a given entity experiences in the same sense we do (tough to put into words, this one).

When people are using different definitions and don't realize it, they end up arguing in circles. I've been there.

An experiential definition is even harder to come to when you realize that even if we both agree that what we are looking at is the colour green, neither of us can really know what the other is looking at. We may both accept that this particular EM wavelength range is green but how we see it could be completely different; your green could be my orange and we would never know based on our limits of description. The problem only compounds itself when we go beyond our species.

edit: just now noticed that I had a silly typo.

[TheReasonator]

As with most conversations about consciouness, we're running into the problem of people using different definitions. Some of us are using a funtional definition, based on whether a given entity can perform certain functions, and some of us are using an experiencial definition, based on whether a given entity experiences in the same sense we do (tough to put into words, this one).

When people are using different definitions and don't realize it, they end up arguing in circles. I've been there.

I should've probably said "what determines the ability to perceive?" It would've been more specific.

According to what I'm asking for something to be "non-conscious" it has to "not be experiencing anything at all, period."

So a complex machine that carries out complex functions and stores and accesses information according to material interactions but which does not experience any of it would not be "conscious" using my definition. For that matter neither would a "philosophical zombie" i.e. a lump of flesh that looks like and behaves exactly the same way human beings do but which is just doing as programmed without experiencing. Note that in my definition a regular human being could also just be doing as programmed but is not a philosophical zombie because it is experiencing it.

Something that just sits there and is only sensitive to one kind of sensation but which experiences this sensation would be "conscious" even if the experience only remains with it in the present to be forgotten forever.

[JohnE]

I sometimes wonder, half-jokingly, what if a rock is actually conscious, but since it has no senses or thought processes, it's not conscious OF anything?

Something that makes me uncomfortable about the idea that consciouness comes simply from the ability to be aware of one's surroundings, to learn and make choices, is that a reasonably well written AI can do that, meaning that killing NPCs in a video game is actually murder (depending on the game). Again, I'm not being <i>entirely</i> serious here, but partly.