It think you took predicting a bit too far and singular. It is not just predicting that is conscious, and it is more simulating or considering or even pattern m

It think you took predicting a bit too far and singular. It is not just predicting that is conscious, and it is more simulating or considering or even pattern matching. This is what I think: Consciousness is continuously self observing past actions, past plans, actual outcomes, planning new actions and predicting future outcomes. That feels like something to the thing doing such a process, because practically all of those steps involve simulating/predicting/checking what something means to itself. Our brains do this because it is a self correcting mechanism. > You can see color of red and don't predict anything at all, while still being consciouss. I don't think so, when you see that color, you cannot help observing its context, what it means, check if something needs to be done, etc. All that is what I meant with predicting. Maybe the color is of no significance, but the only way you figured that out was by "predicting". --- Even if consciousness is 100% material (as I suggest), we can not prove it exists in others. We don't need consciousness as another dimension for it to be improvable. As a matter of fact, if it is another dimension, then our brains are "interacting" with that dimension. So the hypothesis predicts that certain configuration of matter can have some kind of interaction with that dimension. That should not be hard to proof. But since we have no such proof, and more mundane hypotheses, we must conclude that the other dimension hypothesis is extremely unlikely. Another line of thinking on the dimension hypothesis is this: we have brains as small as from C. Elegance with 300 neurons, to ants, 0.25 million neurons, to mice, 70 million neurons, to humans, 86 billion neurons. At which neuron count does consciousness come in? What if we simulate the full neurons of any of these, will it behave the same? Will it be conscious the same?