7 ms·

I have one problem with consciousness is everywhere argument. Namely, if everything down to ants is conscious - how lucky are we to end up experiencing the worl

I have one problem with consciousness is everywhere argument. Namely, if everything down to ants is conscious - how lucky are we to end up experiencing the world as humans? The chances are just too small for me to accept it at face value.

namero999 6y ago
An easy resolution of this doubt lays in definition. Do not mix up phenomenal consciousness with meta-consciousness or self-referential consciousness. Clearly, only humans are meta-conscious. Homo sapiens-sapiens, the man who knows that knows. It's our defining characteristic and leads to all sorts of amazing things are we can witness. Mere phenomenal consciousness is anywhere _in living creatures_ so that even a bacterium can be said to be conscious (it reacts to light sources, for example, and is able to detect nutrients).
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > Clearly, only humans are meta-conscious. I like how you clearly define these differences. But tow do you know other creatures are not meta-conscious?
  - namero999 6y ago
    Short answer: no other creature has developed complex languages, written books or made art. Long answer: there is a plausible argument that consciousness might be a gradient. Certain creatures might express some level of meta consciousness, yet still far from what humans can do. For instance, elephants, primates or even just a dog might express some sort of empathy or more subtle mental states that do not equate with the experience itself, which would be mere phenomenal consciousness, but they do not appear to articulate to themselves those mental states and do anything more than simple reactions with those states. Ultimately the claim comes from empirical observations: there's an immense evolutionary gap between humans and everything else, so that we can plausibly claim that we are the only fully meta-conscious creatures.
- kkoncevicius 6y ago
  This is a bit past me, I wouldn't define "reacts to light" as conscious. In that case my Roomba would be said to be conscious. To me it seems that one is either fully conscious (your definition of meta conscious) or isn't conscious. Otherwise I don't even see what this "consciousness is everywhere" statement would accomplish.
canoebuilder 6y ago
Maybe one aspect of ant consciousness is humans thinking, "hmm what is it like to be an ant?" And maybe one aspect of human consciousness is ants thinking, "hmm what are these large things that seem to leave sugary refuse in their wake?"
jstanley 6y ago
Can you clarify? You find the probability that you are human, conditional on already being human, to be too small to accept?
- kkoncevicius 6y ago
  Not quite - I find the hypothesis for "consciousness is everywhere" to be too hard to accept based on the observation that I ended up as human (assuming that humans are somehow "higher" than other being of course). Or stated a bit fancier - the p-value of the null "consciousness is everywhere" is astronomically small, given this observation of me ending up as a human.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    I think this is confusing conscious entities with anthropic observers. Ants might be conscious but that doesn't mean that they count as anthropic observers. The probability that you are someone who is capable of asking the question you've asked is 1.
  - jstanley 6y ago
    But you can forget consciousness and ask the same question. The chances that the matter you're made of ended up making you is astronomically small compared to it just being random space dust or something. And yet it happened. I think it's just selection bias.
    - kkoncevicius 6y ago
      No no, I disagree, these are very different things. The matter I am made of is nothing special - everything has same kind of matter so I am bound to have some of it. But the consciousness I have is very special - top shelf in all of biology. Say bacteria are conscious. Here is how special this is: the number of bacteria on earth is estimated to be "five million trillion trillion". And there are ~7 billion humans. So the chance that I randomly end up as human, instead of bacteria is ~ 0.0000000000000000000001. And that is disregarding all other creatures.
TriNetra 6y ago
How about you start with a premise that you're a drop in the ocean of consciousness which is eternal, imperishable – the ocean was always there and so it'll always be in future – what about if it's even beyond time because time is a construct of the mind and consciousness is subtler than the mind. Now you have infinite time to take different manifestations as per your desires.
- visarga 6y ago
  Mind and consciousness are feeble while the universe is complex beyond our capacity to grasp. I don't think "time" is just a construct of the mind. If you do, then your mind must be God-like in powers.
thendrill 6y ago
I don't understand your logic. The chance of being and ant or a human is the same....
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
Survivor bias much?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mr-wendel 6y ago
Despite other comments dismissing this, I do think this is a compelling and humbling question. I think its best answered with a few related questions to consider what makes us lucky: 1) Longevity clearly matters, but the relativity of it is hard to assess: some sea mammals with emotionally-rich lives live twice as long. 2) Quality of life clearly matters. It's easy to imagine (and hopefully you personally know some!) pampered pets who have it unbelievably good: tasty food and nutrition, regular fun exercise, a fulfilling social and family life, a sense of purpose, etc. And on the other end of the spectrum: 3) There are untold numbers of us who pulled the short straw in life and have lives marred in tragedy and suffering -- if they even are "lucky" enough to live long enough to comprehend it. I think some of us are incredibly lucky and very much in the minority. The "luck" spectrum in life is so both deep and wide that I'm perfectly happy accepting "consciousness is everywhere" in order to focus on the question of what to do with the consciousness (and unfortunate lack of it at times) I have.
- kkoncevicius 6y ago
  I think this explanation goes a bit sideways - comparing emotional states and happiness, which is not directly related to consciousness. What I am surprised about is not how sentimentally lucky I am, but how unlikely it is that my consciousness (which by the theory of consciousness being everywhere) ended up in the being that we consider to be "most conscious" (human). Even if I lived a very short life full of terror and pain - I still would be just as surprised that consciousness that could have been "planted" anywhere ended up in me - a human. And so the alternative theory of "only humans have consciousness" would be more attractive.
  - mr-wendel 6y ago
    Sideways indeed! I agree. I think as consciousness grows and expands it becomes increasingly clear that what we call "emotion" is an inseparable quality of being conscious. The more emotion is denied (or suppressed) the more obvious its underlying presence becomes, as it becomes a massive, unconscious (and dangerous) rudder. Personally, I find it astonishing that anyone could draw a line at humanity. For example, have you never bonded with a dog before? It's so blazingly clear that while there are obvious differences there are even more similarities behind how they think and feel. It's not just dogs: cows, pigs, and rats -- if you spend any time with them -- are obviously high on the spectrum. It's unfathomable that the line of consciousness is anywhere near being at humans alone. My intent isn't to be insulting, but inviting! There is much splendor in connecting with non-human life, even if it doesn't have all the same qualities as human life :).
visarga 6y ago
> everything down to ants is conscious Probably anything that self replicates and has to fight for resources. Even a cell can have perception and behaviour. It's actually fascinating, but a network of DNA and proteins can function like a neural net inside a single cell.

namero999 6y ago

An easy resolution of this doubt lays in definition. Do not mix up phenomenal consciousness with meta-consciousness or self-referential consciousness. Clearly, only humans are meta-conscious. Homo sapiens-sapiens, the man who knows that knows. It's our defining characteristic and leads to all sorts of amazing things are we can witness. Mere phenomenal consciousness is anywhere _in living creatures_ so that even a bacterium can be said to be conscious (it reacts to light sources, for example, and is able to detect nutrients).

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> Clearly, only humans are meta-conscious. I like how you clearly define these differences. But tow do you know other creatures are not meta-conscious?
- namero999 6y ago
  Short answer: no other creature has developed complex languages, written books or made art. Long answer: there is a plausible argument that consciousness might be a gradient. Certain creatures might express some level of meta consciousness, yet still far from what humans can do. For instance, elephants, primates or even just a dog might express some sort of empathy or more subtle mental states that do not equate with the experience itself, which would be mere phenomenal consciousness, but they do not appear to articulate to themselves those mental states and do anything more than simple reactions with those states. Ultimately the claim comes from empirical observations: there's an immense evolutionary gap between humans and everything else, so that we can plausibly claim that we are the only fully meta-conscious creatures.
kkoncevicius 6y ago
This is a bit past me, I wouldn't define "reacts to light" as conscious. In that case my Roomba would be said to be conscious. To me it seems that one is either fully conscious (your definition of meta conscious) or isn't conscious. Otherwise I don't even see what this "consciousness is everywhere" statement would accomplish.

canoebuilder 6y ago

Maybe one aspect of ant consciousness is humans thinking, "hmm what is it like to be an ant?" And maybe one aspect of human consciousness is ants thinking, "hmm what are these large things that seem to leave sugary refuse in their wake?"

jstanley 6y ago

Can you clarify? You find the probability that you are human, conditional on already being human, to be too small to accept?

kkoncevicius 6y ago
Not quite - I find the hypothesis for "consciousness is everywhere" to be too hard to accept based on the observation that I ended up as human (assuming that humans are somehow "higher" than other being of course). Or stated a bit fancier - the p-value of the null "consciousness is everywhere" is astronomically small, given this observation of me ending up as a human.
- hntrader 6y ago
  I think this is confusing conscious entities with anthropic observers. Ants might be conscious but that doesn't mean that they count as anthropic observers. The probability that you are someone who is capable of asking the question you've asked is 1.
- jstanley 6y ago
  But you can forget consciousness and ask the same question. The chances that the matter you're made of ended up making you is astronomically small compared to it just being random space dust or something. And yet it happened. I think it's just selection bias.
  - kkoncevicius 6y ago
    No no, I disagree, these are very different things. The matter I am made of is nothing special - everything has same kind of matter so I am bound to have some of it. But the consciousness I have is very special - top shelf in all of biology. Say bacteria are conscious. Here is how special this is: the number of bacteria on earth is estimated to be "five million trillion trillion". And there are ~7 billion humans. So the chance that I randomly end up as human, instead of bacteria is ~ 0.0000000000000000000001. And that is disregarding all other creatures.

TriNetra 6y ago

How about you start with a premise that you're a drop in the ocean of consciousness which is eternal, imperishable – the ocean was always there and so it'll always be in future – what about if it's even beyond time because time is a construct of the mind and consciousness is subtler than the mind. Now you have infinite time to take different manifestations as per your desires.

visarga 6y ago
Mind and consciousness are feeble while the universe is complex beyond our capacity to grasp. I don't think "time" is just a construct of the mind. If you do, then your mind must be God-like in powers.

thendrill 6y ago

I don't understand your logic. The chance of being and ant or a human is the same....

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

Survivor bias much?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mr-wendel 6y ago

Despite other comments dismissing this, I do think this is a compelling and humbling question. I think its best answered with a few related questions to consider what makes us lucky: 1) Longevity clearly matters, but the relativity of it is hard to assess: some sea mammals with emotionally-rich lives live twice as long. 2) Quality of life clearly matters. It's easy to imagine (and hopefully you personally know some!) pampered pets who have it unbelievably good: tasty food and nutrition, regular fun exercise, a fulfilling social and family life, a sense of purpose, etc. And on the other end of the spectrum: 3) There are untold numbers of us who pulled the short straw in life and have lives marred in tragedy and suffering -- if they even are "lucky" enough to live long enough to comprehend it. I think some of us are incredibly lucky and very much in the minority. The "luck" spectrum in life is so both deep and wide that I'm perfectly happy accepting "consciousness is everywhere" in order to focus on the question of what to do with the consciousness (and unfortunate lack of it at times) I have.

kkoncevicius 6y ago
I think this explanation goes a bit sideways - comparing emotional states and happiness, which is not directly related to consciousness. What I am surprised about is not how sentimentally lucky I am, but how unlikely it is that my consciousness (which by the theory of consciousness being everywhere) ended up in the being that we consider to be "most conscious" (human). Even if I lived a very short life full of terror and pain - I still would be just as surprised that consciousness that could have been "planted" anywhere ended up in me - a human. And so the alternative theory of "only humans have consciousness" would be more attractive.
- mr-wendel 6y ago
  Sideways indeed! I agree. I think as consciousness grows and expands it becomes increasingly clear that what we call "emotion" is an inseparable quality of being conscious. The more emotion is denied (or suppressed) the more obvious its underlying presence becomes, as it becomes a massive, unconscious (and dangerous) rudder. Personally, I find it astonishing that anyone could draw a line at humanity. For example, have you never bonded with a dog before? It's so blazingly clear that while there are obvious differences there are even more similarities behind how they think and feel. It's not just dogs: cows, pigs, and rats -- if you spend any time with them -- are obviously high on the spectrum. It's unfathomable that the line of consciousness is anywhere near being at humans alone. My intent isn't to be insulting, but inviting! There is much splendor in connecting with non-human life, even if it doesn't have all the same qualities as human life :).

visarga 6y ago

> everything down to ants is conscious Probably anything that self replicates and has to fight for resources. Even a cell can have perception and behaviour. It's actually fascinating, but a network of DNA and proteins can function like a neural net inside a single cell.