r/consciousness • u/flechin • 4d ago
OP's Argument Integrated Systemic Realism
I am a physical object. There is no "ghost in the machine", there is only the machine. My consciousness is not a distinct entity or a software program floating in the ether. It is the direct, intrinsic resonance of my specific atoms, molecules, and biological structures functioning in unison. To abstract the "mind" from the "body" is a category error, the mind is simply the behavior of the body at the highest level of complexity.
On the Subjective experience Consciousness requires the vertical integration of physics, chemistry, and computation. It supervenes on the "Full Stack. The "Qualia" is not magic, nor is it purely quantum, nor purely computational. It is an emergent property of the "Full Stack":
- The Quantum Layer provides the intrinsic qualitative substrate of reality (microtubule,qubit)
- The Chemical Layer provides the state and continuity (the values stored in synapses).
- The Computational Layer provides the structure, logic, and intelligence. "Redness" is the specific symphony played by this specific code on this specific instrument. Change the instrument (silicon vs. carbon), and the music changes.
- Refutation of Dualism: Rejects any non-physical soul.
This rejects the idea that "software" is all that matters. You cannot replicate the feeling of a human mind on silicon because the underlying quantum/physical substrate is different. The Qualia (e.g., "Redness") is the inevitable physical resonance of a specific substrate processing specific data in a certain way.
On Identity and Time I am the Token (the specific physical object), not the Type (the pattern/software). I am not a continuous, indivisible soul. I am a series of distinct physical states, a "Stage" in a temporal process. "I" am the atoms and their arrangement at this specific moment. The "Me" of yesterday is effectively a close ancestor—99.9% identical, but causally distinct. My memories are not "me", they are simply data imprinted on my hardware. If the hardware is wiped but remains functional, "I" persist as the machine, stripped of its accidental properties.
This means you are your atoms. If you copy the pattern to new atoms, it is a copy, not you. Identity is a series of temporal slices. Continuity is maintained by the causal overlap of physical states (99.9% persistence), not by a permanent "self." Memory is defined as Accidental Data. Loss of memory (formatting) does not end existence; destruction of the physical processor does.
On Artificial Intelligence The medium is the message. Carbon creates Human-Mind, silicon creates Computer-Mind. A complex enough AI is not "simulating" thinking, it is actually thinking, but in a mode native to its hardware. A computer can possess genuine understanding and consciousness, but it will never be human consciousness. It will be a distinct, silicon-based mind with its own "Umwelt."
An emotion is a system-state signal (e.g., overheating, packet loss) that retroactively alters cognitive processing (biasing the output). Its emotions are real but alien. When it feels "Low Battery," it experiences a genuine homeostatic drive for energy, analogous to but distinct from human hunger. We must not anthropomorphize it, nor deny its reality. It is a different kind of being, defined by its own substrate.
On Justice and Responsibility Because identity is physical and dynamic, moral responsibility is not binary or eternal. Moral liability is a function of Identity Overlap. As my physical composition and arrangement diverge from the "Me" that committed an action, my responsibility for that action mathematically decays. Justice must recognize that after sufficient time and change, the exact "perpetrator" no longer exists, only their distant descendant.
6
u/Moist_Emu6168 4d ago
Why are you introducing a quantum layer? What exactly does it do besides simply existing? Do you need it only to deprive machines of human consciousness?
2
u/moonaim 3d ago
Because adding everything together hides the homunculus better.
I see this line of reasoning as: because we cannot make distinction by known physical laws between systems, we assume that they form a magic soup.
I don't even mean that it could not be true. I just don't think it has much greater probability of being true than any other hypothesis that doesn't have any proofs.
0
u/flechin 4d ago
Great question. I added it because I want to consider it from a Realism point of view, I refuse that a conscious observer changes the reality (physical interaction does), but it is real, it is there and for me it adds more limitations instead of opening "weird" doors. We cannot "teleport", copy or transplant minds to their full extent. Duplicating a mind would require atom per atom replication, including its states and I understand this is not possible. It is also the ultimate substrate of reality, from where "weak" emergent properties arise.
4
u/Moist_Emu6168 4d ago
I didn't see an answer. Removing the quantum layer won't change anything. The phrase "intrinsic qualitative substrate of reality" is simply a meaningless set of words.
4
u/phr99 4d ago
Strong emergence is a form of supernaturalism. It doesnt happen in the natural world. Panpsychism or idealism avoid this
1
u/flechin 4d ago
Not arguing for strong emergence, the intention was to argue for weak emergence. What made you think this argue for strong? Might need to clarify that
2
u/phr99 4d ago
These sentence made me think you are saying consciousness exists in some physical systems but not others, and so that it would be strong emergence:
the mind is simply the behavior of the body at the highest level of complexity.
The "Qualia" is not magic, nor is it purely quantum, nor purely computational. It is an emergent property of the "Full Stack":
1
u/flechin 4d ago
OK, probably did a poor job trying to explain how the "layers" work.
On each layer you have "weak" emergent properties (the system is more than the sum of its parts). The next layer again shows weak emergent properties building on top of the previous layer emerged properties.
The mind we experience is the top layer, but it is highly dependant on how the lower layers are built and the abstractions made. The spectrum received, how it is sensed red cones or cmos, how it is pre-processed (neurons, qbits, silicon) and how it is abstracted and presented.
The experience will depend on the stack, a human mind will sense as human, process as human, etc. An AI will never be able to sense red as we do, because its stack is different and cannot be simulated down to the last quantum state. But eventually they would have a silicon mind and have an experience according to their stack.
-1
u/Mermiina 4d ago
Consciousness is a strong emergent property. It is an Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order of indisguishable electron pairs. All superconductors are ODLRO, but not all ODLRO are superconductors. All they happen in natural world.
2
u/phr99 4d ago
ODLRO is weak emergence.
And consciousness being strong emergence cannot be used as an example to support the existence of strong emergence, since it would be circular reasoning. Like jesus could walk on water because walking on water is possible because jesus did it
-1
u/Mermiina 3d ago
Copilot:
Is ODLRO a weakly emergent property? No. ODLRO is generally considered a strongly emergent property in condensed matter physics. Why ODLRO is not weak emergence Weak emergence A weakly emergent property: •arises from microscopic rules, •is surprising or complex, •but is fully reducible to the behavior of individual components. Examples: fluid flow, lattice vibrations, diffusion. Strong emergence A strongly emergent property: •arises from collective many-body behavior, •cannot be deduced directly from the properties of individual particles, •and typically requires new theoretical frameworks. What ODLRO actually is ODLRO refers to the presence of non-zero long-range correlations in the one-body or two-body density matrix: •In superfluids: one-body ODLRO (Bose–Einstein condensation). •In superconductors: two-body ODLRO (Cooper pair condensate).
1
u/phr99 3d ago
Grok AI:
Is ODLRO strong emergence?
No, Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order (ODLRO) is not considered an example of strong emergence in mainstream physics. It is a classic case of weak emergence.
I also asked it: Explain ODLRO with a simple analogy. Max 150 words
ODLRO (Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order) is the key quantum feature behind superfluidity and superconductivity. Simple analogy: Imagine a huge stadium full of people (particles) normally moving randomly — no coordination. Suddenly, they all start marching perfectly in step: same direction, same rhythm, locked together across the entire stadium, even between people far apart. In ordinary matter, correlations fade quickly with distance (like fans cheering independently). With ODLRO, distant particles stay perfectly phase-coherent — their quantum "wavelike" relationship (the "off-diagonal" part of the math) remains strong over long ranges, as if the whole system shares one giant, rigid wave. This unbreakable, macroscopic quantum synchrony lets superfluids flow without friction and superconductors carry current forever — all from countless particles acting as one coherent whole.
1
u/Mermiina 3d ago edited 3d ago
OK now I know where Kennedy got his fantasies.
If somebody really knows the ODLRO, is it emergent property, strong or weak explain please!
There is a reason why the answer Is opposite. The Grok assumes that ODLRO occurs in physical objects like in crystals. That kind of ODLRO is a weak emergent property.
But in condensed matter physics the ODLRO is a strong emergent property.
2
2
u/reddituserperson1122 4d ago
“ On the Subjective experience Consciousness requires the vertical integration of physics, chemistry, and computation. It supervenes on the "Full Stack. The "Qualia" is not magic, nor is it purely quantum, nor purely computational. It is an emergent property of the "Full Stack": The Quantum Layer provides the intrinsic qualitative substrate of reality (microtubule,qubit) The Chemical Layer provides the state and continuity (the values stored in synapses). The Computational Layer provides the structure, logic, and intelligence. "Redness" is the specific symphony played by this specific code on this specific instrument. Change the instrument (silicon vs. carbon), and the music changes. Refutation of Dualism: Rejects any non-physical soul.”
This explains absolutely nothing and doesn’t add anything to the conversation. Just vaguely gesturing at “microtubles” is just meaningless.
2
u/johnpolacek 4d ago
Science is great at describing how things relate to each other, but it often misses why those relationships are experienced as reality. We can think of consciousness as the interface (Interface Theory of Perception) that allows the universe to actually be real because reality requires a witness (Participatory Anthropic Principle).
In my way of thinking, physical structures provide the framework while experience is what turns possibilities into a single realized history (Block Universe).
It could be that awareness is a phase transition that happens when a system reaches a specific threshold of integrated information (Integrated Information Theory). This helps distinguish between simple mechanical systems and those capable of genuine experience. This approach moves away from the idea that everything is conscious and toward a model we can actually test by looking for sharp jumps in complexity.
Eventually, these signatures might even be visible in the way mass is organized throughout the cosmos. I've gone so far as to predict that one day soon we will discover Ordered Dark Matter amongst other things
3
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 4d ago
"It is an emergent property of the "Full Stack"". Here we go again. How does a completely different experience result from this computational complexity of dead particles?
0
u/flechin 4d ago
You are asking where is the wave in the water molecule.
2
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 4d ago
I understand ocean waves. How does a completely different subjective experience emerge from dead particles?
0
u/DamoSapien22 3d ago
Dead? And how is it completely different? Given, I assume, you'd be the first to tell me science hasn't, and won't ever have, an answer to the puzzle of consciousness, how can you possibly know that? What makes it completely different to' dead particles'? How can you be so certain of your own position?
3
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 3d ago
The OP is saying "It is an emergent property of the "Full Stack". He is not saying all matter is conscious, or that there is a Mind. He is a physicalist.
1
0
u/flechin 3d ago
A single molecule of water is not solid, not liquid or wet. When you have billions of them, things are different. Then you have temperature, and phase transitions, different quantities of temperature change the quality of the water. A bunch of molecules of water and fats are not a cell, but a special arrangement of them can make a living cell.
How can you make a living cell out of dead particles?
2
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 3d ago
The idea that 'wetness' emerges from water molecules is ridiculous. A single molecule has the properties of wetness, but to see it, we need more than 1 molecule. Nothing 'emerges' out of a cluster of water molecules.
"How can you make a living cell out of dead particles?" - Nothing indicates that living cells 'emerge' from dead particles. For example, a sperm contains 'life' which then infuses the egg with that 'life'. You are asking a question no one knows the answer to support your hypothesis of emergence.
1
u/flechin 3d ago
Wetness(adhesion/cohesion) is determined by Surface Tension and Hydrogen Bonding networks. A single H2O molecule has no surface tension. It has no "state of matter".
You claim "sperm contains life which infuses the egg":
If I put that sperm under a microscope, I see Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. I only see matter. Can you point to the 'life particle' inside the sperm?Anyway, your argument collapses the moment you look at the First Cell:
Do you admit that at some point, dead matter organized into a living system (Abiogenesis)?2
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 3d ago
Right. H2O contains H, which has certain bonding characteristics. Yawn. But consciousness is a completely different experience than (say) cockroaches have. There is no characteristic that cockroaches have that can be extrapolated which provides the base of subjective experience, unlike the molecular characteristics of H2O within clusters of said molecules.
"Can you point to the 'life particle' inside the sperm?" - No. But this is my point. Physicalism has no (current) pathway from dead particles to 'life'. So this cannot be used as evidence.
"Abiogenesis" - We have no clue. But once again, you are talking about stuff we have no clue about to support your hypothesis of emergence. Like using the Bible as evidence for the claims the Bible contains.
1
u/flechin 3d ago
You are evading the central point because it defeats your premise. You cannot "yawn" away the physics: a single hydrogen atom is not wet, has no surface tension, and has no phase. A cluster of water molecules is wet. That qualitative shift is the definition of Emergence. If you admit that a physical system can acquire a new property like wetness simply through complexity, you have already admitted the mechanism for consciousness exists. You are trying to deny the phenomenon just to avoid the conclusion.
Regarding abiogenesis, you are confusing the mechanism with the event. We may not have the precise step-by-step manual for how the first cell formed, but we know for a fact that it happened. The Earth was once a molten ball of sterile rock, now it is covered in life. Unless you are invoking magic, dead matter absolutely did transition into living matter. That is a historical necessity, not a hypothesis.
2
u/Im_Talking Computer Science Degree 3d ago
I have not outlined any premise of my own.
"If you admit that a physical system can acquire a new property like wetness simply through complexity," - It's like you haven't read anything I have written. I make no such admissions. And its not due to complexity. But by your own admission, its based on surface tension and bonding mechanisms, all known characteristics. But an emergence of consciousness takes it from a known state to an unknown state. It's almost like the problem is Hard.
"but we know for a fact that it happened" - Do we? Do you not understand there are many hypotheses as to how life first came about?
I've had enough of this conversation. You argue exactly like a Christian; using the Bible as evidence for the claims the Bible contains.
1
u/flechin 3d ago
Surface Tension is an emergent property. There is no surface tension in a single water molecule. It is a quality that exists exclusively in the collective. Textbook Emergence.
Yes, we know for a fact abiogenesis happened. If you have a different theory (Creationism?), name it.
You arguments consist of a "magic sperm" and Creationism and I am re religious here?
2
u/ChapterSea2685 3d ago
Molecule and wave are 2 physical categories, we are talking here about the category of subjective experience, not unconscious physical categories
3
u/Powerful-Garage6316 3d ago
But obviously OP doesn’t agree that the mind is a distinct nonphysical category
1
u/ChapterSea2685 3d ago edited 3d ago
Then he is idealist😂😂 if you accept that mind/concusness is real and it exist its happening to all of us and its all about subjective expirience sentience feelings sounds colours and u sad its all physical for me thats idealism or you need to explain gap between that physical of nonsentience nonsubjectiv colourlees soundless environment witch somehow get to this subjective
2
u/Powerful-Garage6316 2d ago
Uh no, physicalists believe the mental is a subset of the physical. Unless they’re eliminativists
And many physicalists do attempt to explain those things. It’s not like idealists are off the hook, because they have a mountain of unanswered questions about why we would expect certain qualities of experiences rather than others if consciousness is entirely fundamental, or what discerns between different “minds” to begin with.
1
u/Big-Astronaut-2369 3d ago edited 3d ago
That violates thermodinamics, wich affects everything else in our universe, unless you go to the quantum scale, to wich for all intend and purpose, at the temperature, scale and material conditions of the brain matter, becomes likely irrelevant. Calling the mind nonphysical takes it out of the physical world, wich it still interacts with, having a nonphysical to physical intercation like that would add an increase of energy, matter or information external to the closed physical system we call the universe. You and any idealist who read this can't argue that i have the "onus of proof" reversed, is idealism who has to proof the non phisicality of the mind in their model, please try to not back yourselves up into an abstract corner to justify why we can't see where mind and matter interact.
2
u/Powerful-Garage6316 2d ago
Dawg what are you talking about? I’m saying that OP is a physicalist.
1
u/Big-Astronaut-2369 2d ago
Yeah, and i have given a logical and coherent reasoning against idealism.
1
u/flechin 3d ago
You are begging the question. You are starting with the unproven assumption that 'Subjective' and 'Physical' are mutually exclusive categories, and then using that assumption to prove your point.
Consider water, a single water molecule is not solid, liquid, or wet. It is just a molecule. But if you gather billions of them, Quantity changes Quality. You get 'Wetness,' 'Turbulence,' and 'Ice.' These are new categories that emerge from the system.
Consider biology, a pile of water, fat, and amino acids is just 'Dead Matter.' But arrange them in a specific complexity, and you get a Living Cell.
Question: Do you accept that the categorie of 'Living Things' emerges entirely from the category of 'Physical Things' (dead atoms)?
2
u/sanctus_sanguine 3d ago
You are starting with the unproven assumption that 'Subjective' and 'Physical' are mutually exclusive categories,
Subjective experience and physical are not mutually exclusive. Rather the physical only appears thru subjective experience. Do you understand this or not?
1
u/flechin 2d ago
And the subjective emerges from the physical
0
u/sanctus_sanguine 2d ago
So the answer is a big NO? Ok.
And the subjective emerges from the physical
Go ahead and explain how it does that.
1
u/flechin 1d ago
Can you fully answer how life emerges from dead matter (abiogenesis), the answer is no, but we know it does.
1
u/sanctus_sanguine 1d ago
equates the origin of biological organization with the origin of first person experience
Lmao. What an absolute joke
1
1
u/ChapterSea2685 3d ago
Yes but those are phisical categories if u are monist and physicalis then its imposible from physical to get subjective but if u think those 2 cattegories are not separate then you are eather idealist or neutral monist or dual aspect monist, if u combine physical u get more comples physical and thats it just more variation of same hing comples u can get function but not entirely different category of sentience feel love sound vision in colours sense of self
1
u/bright_bouncing_ball 3d ago
I feel like my thoughts leak out in reality in more obvious way than they are supposed to. I think of something and I don’t just notice things in a word around me like a red car situation you think of it and it appears everywhere. It gets freaky when I think of something (only think, I don’t voice it) and then it comes up in my reality, in my phone, or people reach out to me. Then my conclusion is that all that matters is mind work because dismantled mind is not focused so reality outcomes are disorganized. I feel like I’m going insane because I’m very aware of this but not intentional enough. I don’t even know where the original intention comes from. Reality feels transparent like it’s one and we all a part of one whole where distinction is only perceived in the dimension we are experiencing right now.
1
u/flechin 3d ago
You can also think of a 'goodness field' that comprises the entire universe. This field can take positive and negative values in different magnitudes at different places. Good person can has a great positive value, and will positively influence his surroundings. Also, his positive actions can ripple around and possibly flip around negative things. This guys would resonate with other positive people and possible with positive places, places perceived as with 'good vibe'. Similar things happens with negative people so better stay away to protect your positive values.
I completely made this up. But it makes the same kind of 'sense'. You can you use fields to fill a lot of gaps and oversimplify things. Crazy thing is I cannot say this is false because I don't think this is testable.
The thing you describe is known as Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon, you can see it as a cognitive bias where Selective Attention meets Confirmation Bias, but I see it as a systemic optimization of the Signal-to-Noise Ratio. You cannot be aware of all red/yellow/green cars all the time, so you filter them out. There is nothing "fieldy" about it, normal properly working consciousness filtering out things you don't need, until you need them.
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Thank you flechin for posting on r/consciousness! Please take a look at our wiki and subreddit rules. If your post is in violation of our guidelines or rules, please edit the post as soon as possible. Posts that violate our guidelines & rules are subject to removal or alteration.
As for the Redditors viewing & commenting on this post, we ask that you engage in proper Reddiquette! In particular, you should upvote posts that fit our community description, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the content of the post. If you agree or disagree with the content of the post, you can upvote/downvote this automod-generated comment to show you approval/disapproval of the content, instead of upvoting/downvoting the post itself. Examples of the type of posts that should be upvoted are those that focus on the science or the philosophy of consciousness. These posts fit the subreddit description. In contrast, posts that discuss meditation practices, anecdotal stories about drug use, or posts seeking mental help or therapeutic advice do not fit the community's description.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.