3 ms·
I agree about the best parties. But what about the idea that consciousness exists on a continuum — that everything that processes information has a scope of con
by NoGravitas 5y ago
I agree about the best parties. But what about the idea that consciousness exists on a continuum — that everything that processes information has a scope of consciousness that corresponds to the complexity of what it processes? A block of steel doesn't really process any information, but a thermostat does, and so does a paramecium. I'm happy to grant qualia to a paramecium, even if I don't think those qualia are very substantial or interesting in human terms. I feel a little weirder about the thermostat, but, um, sure, why not, I guess?
I guess I'm siding with group 4, but just saying that quantity has a quality all its own. Or that universal consciousness doesn't have to be spooky.
- nickelpro 5y agoAsking "how is consciousness quantized?" definitely would put you in (4) and is favored by Chalmers I believe. The idea that consciousness can somehow be "aggregated" by sufficiently complex or anti-entropic systems lends itself to this view.
- Hayarotle 5y agoI like that option. You don't have to find something that would give a hard border between "conscious" and "unconscious" entities, nor claim qualia doesn't exist, nor claim a rock has a level of consciousness equivalent to that of humans.
- joeberon 5y agoThis is personally my feeling of it too. I think the boundaries between us are illusory, and that it is all continuous and fuzzy. So a universal consciousness is no issue for me, one that is neither singular nor separate.
- suzzer99 5y agoI agree with this. IMO any theory wrt to consciousness has to first and foremost consider that no hard line can be drawn along the continuum from human beings to elephants to ants to yeast cells.