3 ms·
I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I didn't claim that atoms are conscious, nor did I claim or imply that the consciousness of a complex organism emerges
by adwn 6y ago
I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I didn't claim that atoms are conscious, nor did I claim or imply that the consciousness of a complex organism emerges from the consciousness of its sub-atomic components. If consciousness is gradual – and I believe it is – then it's possible that insects are not conscious, and simple consciousness only starts at the complexity of, e.g., a reptile's brain, or somewhere along the development of a fetus.
To be clear, when I say "closer to a sub-atomic particle's consciousness", I mean "not conscious at all". Hmm, I admit, that sentence could be misunderstood. Sorry, that was my fault.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago> To be clear, when I say "closer to a sub-atomic particle's consciousness", I mean "not conscious at all". How could that be what you meant? You laid out 2 options, and your corrected option 2 is the same as your option 1.
- adwn 6y ago> How could that be what you meant? You laid out 2 options, and your corrected option 2 is the same as your option 1. I don't get what you're saying. My "corrected" option 2 means that consciousness is a spectrum, that consciousness is not a binary property. A human is more conscious than a chicken, which is more conscious than an insect, which is more conscious than a bacterium, which is not conscious at all.
- wombatmobile 6y agoI don’t think the topic being discussed here is “consciousness”. Rather it is how similar an other organism seems to humans, from the point of view of a human. The more human something looks, the more plausible it seems that the being may be conscious. But this begs the question of what consciousness is, and is not a scientific approach.