3 ms·

An easy resolution of this doubt lays in definition. Do not mix up phenomenal consciousness with meta-consciousness or self-referential consciousness. Clearly,

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.

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.