The five levels of consciousness
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The five levels of consciousness
The connections between these things and consciousness may be foundational in terms of the systems that support conscious awareness, but the connections between these things and consciousness as regards the topic seem oblique.
For instance, take gravity and dark energy. What have they to do with consciousness?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The five levels of consciousness
Greta:
In your categorisation of emergences it's interesting that you place stars and planets on the same level as such things as viruses. A superficial objection to that would be that planets, at least, must be more complex than viruses because they can contain them. What this highlights is that the level of detail with which you examine the object in question is relevant to its categorisation. Taking planets as an example, for the sake of modelling them there are numerous levels of detail with which they can be described, depending on the purpose. Probably the simplest is as a single infinitesimal point particle, or as a perfect sphere with all the mass concentrated at the centre. This is how they're modelled when considering their gravitational interactions with other astronomical bodies. Obviously at this level the question of whether they host viruses, or anything else, is irrelevant. As the model gets more and more sophisticated and accurate it gets more and more complex.- proto life - stars, planets, viruses, prions
So the question is, in categorising planets like this, to what level of detail are you considering them and why? And couldn't they be arbitrarily moved up and down the list depending on the level you choose?
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: The five levels of consciousness
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The five levels of consciousness
Hi Steve, sorry about the slow reply.Steve3007 wrote:I've entered this conversation after it's already quite mature so apologies if I'm going over things that have already been covered.
Greta:In your categorisation of emergences it's interesting that you place stars and planets on the same level as such things as viruses. A superficial objection to that would be that planets, at least, must be more complex than viruses because they can contain them. What this highlights is that the level of detail with which you examine the object in question is relevant to its categorisation. Taking planets as an example, for the sake of modelling them there are numerous levels of detail with which they can be described, depending on the purpose. Probably the simplest is as a single infinitesimal point particle, or as a perfect sphere with all the mass concentrated at the centre. This is how they're modelled when considering their gravitational interactions with other astronomical bodies. Obviously at this level the question of whether they host viruses, or anything else, is irrelevant. As the model gets more and more sophisticated and accurate it gets more and more complex.- proto life - stars, planets, viruses, prions
So the question is, in categorising planets like this, to what level of detail are you considering them and why? And couldn't they be arbitrarily moved up and down the list depending on the level you choose?
You wonder about how to prioritise/categorise an entity like the Earth that are necessarily more complex than humans (and viruses :) yet they seemingly are ostensibly less aware. That may be an assumption but, if the Earth is aware, it's not our kind of external relational awareness because it would be of no use. Further, what we have observed in nature is that spherical and other geometrically tidy entities tend to be simpler than complex plant and animal structures.
Maybe it would be tidier and arguably more aligned with observed and experienced reality to treat cosmic entities large enough to have a core (planetary, stellar and black hole equivalents of a metabolism) on their own scale, based on complexity of their processes? I understand that stars are simpler than planets because the high temperatures create too much turmoil for complex internal structures to emerge (although more is being learned about the complexity of the relationships between stars' layers and their magnetic fields).
While there's various conceptions of dimensions, I'm a fan of the old scale-based definition as in "extent, size, or degree". In that case, planets can be thought of as being of a different dimension to its life forms, and we are in the same sense dimensionally separated from our bacteria.
In such a sliding scale, what might be at the bottom? Maybe neutrinos or WIMPs?
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: The five levels of consciousness
It seems to me that here you are implying no awareness whatsoever for planets, insects, and microbes. That is how I'm interpreting your phrase "doesn't possess consciousness". If I'm correct, then I'd strongly disagree with this. I believe all living matter possesses awareness of some kind. But perhaps you mean something else?Finn_Mac wrote: Level 1: Beings that act instinctively: This category could include any type of living thing that doesn't possess consciousness but still lives and reproduces ranging from plant matter such as flowers and trees which have a life cycle but do not possess a consciousness and act out their life cycle, to animals such as bacteria and insects who act purely on instinct.
I think I get your general idea here, but it seems a bit arbitrary. So a fish has a "basic level of intellect" but not a spider? Where do you draw the line and why? "Basic" is a fairly ambiguous word.Level 2: Beings with a basic level of intellect: This category covers animals which possess the ability to communicate, embrace basic feelings and rationalise to a certain extent. This category extends from animals such as fish to more complicated beings such as monkeys, Dolphins and forms of humanoid such as Neanderthals.
I have no problem with this, although I must note that basically your "Level 3" is human beings, and your description of this "Level 3 intellect" is basically to say that it's our intellect. Saying it's "independent" and "more broad" and "rational" thinking however, doesn't get to the key point for me. The "key point" which differentiates our intellect from other animals' intellects is that we can talk to ourselves, reason things out in our heads. Animals cannot do this.Level 3: Beings that have developed intellect beyond the point of other animals: This category represents beings that can think independently and more broadly and act rationally rather than impulsively and have also developed a more complex way of living such as ourselves.
I have no problem with Levels 4 & 5 generally speaking, and believe both such entities exist. However, your Level 5 being seems to imply there could be only one. Is this correct? Or do you imagine more than one such entity? To me, Level 5 is the Universe Itself, which happens to be a sentient being. Level 4 is other entities existing within it which have intellects superior enough to be placed in this category ---> not nearly on Level 5 but beyond our own sufficiently enough to not be considered "human-like".Level 4: Advanced beings: Beings that have not been identified but have a strong possibility of existing with superhuman capabilities and advancements.
Level 5: Godlike being(s): the highest form of being capable of existing. This being is so much more refined and intelligent it could have the capability of creating life on immeasurable scales such as the known universes. This type of being is relatively incomprehensible to the human imagination and has been interpreted by humans for centuries.
In general, I find your classificatory scheme to be a step in the right direction, but it definitely needs some work....
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: The five levels of consciousness
What I don't understand is this: if we are on level three, then how are we supposed to get to level four? From a religious standpoint, I can understand that it is possible for someone to be raised to the level of like or near deity, though you have to die first or be transfigured by the power of God. But then what do we do to get to level four?
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: The five levels of consciousness
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The five levels of consciousness
That will happen over time, if not with humans (since nothing is guaranteed), at least some intelligent life somewhere amongst the trillion galaxies out there will make the technologically enhanced evolutionary leap. Ditto the step from #4 to #5.Lark_Truth wrote:What I don't understand is this: if we are on level three, then how are we supposed to get to level four? From a religious standpoint, I can understand that it is possible for someone to be raised to the level of like or near deity, though you have to die first or be transfigured by the power of God. But then what do we do to get to level four?
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The five levels of consciousness
Less than your "atoms" and "molecules" at local levels but at macro-cosmic level very much.Greta wrote:I don't understand your symbolic language.The connections between these things and consciousness may be foundational in terms of the systems that support conscious awareness, but the connections between these things and consciousness as regards the topic seem oblique.
For instance, take gravity and dark energy. What have they to do with consciousness?
All is connected by gravity and dark energy.
Take those away and Universe and Earth does not exist ergo human consciousness does not exist.
Human consciousness looks for truth wherever it is to be found.
r6
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023