Are you saying that consciousness is merely an aggregate form of a complexity? Yes, essentially that. You’ve lost me here at ‘self-describe’. Without appealin

Are you saying that consciousness is merely an aggregate form of a complexity? Yes, essentially that. You’ve lost me here at ‘self-describe’. Without appealing to any non-physical terms/concepts, what does it mean for something complex to be self-describing? No, not self-describing, but trying to do that (see the original wording). I was basically portraying all of us in this thread. “A complexity big enough to ask questions and trying to answer them”. But at the same time I don’t deny consciousness from animals who ask easier questions like where’s the food at. Also, you’re using the word ‘conscious’ here a little different I see that after your explanations. What I was describing is “smart” to you, not “conscious”. But I think these two are (cor)related because smart means complex, simply by information laws. So I’m aware of true-consciousness which you’re talking about, but am looking at it from a different angle. as Nagel puts it, there’s something that it’s like to be a bat. In the same sense, there’s something that it’s like to be asleep (whether or not you remember it). So whether you’re less or more conscious in the sense of sleep (or of continual transformation), it’s always conscious in the sense that there’s something that it’s like to be that. But can’t we extend that to something that it’s like to be a chair? Or air, or empty space. We don’t perceive anything momentarily, it’s a process. And if it is a process, it means its state has to be stored somewhere. Isn’t that our subject? If yes, then you can gradually reduce the processing capabilities and state volumes until both become zero.