I feel that there is an alternative way of approaching the question: to propose that it is only meaningful to ask what it is like to be an X if the X has certai

I feel that there is an alternative way of approaching the question: to propose that it is only meaningful to ask what it is like to be an X if the X has certain mental abilities, such as some sort of self-awareness of itself as a participant in a wider world. How would we go about evaluating and choosing between these two views, and is there room for there being degrees of 'what it is like' and self-awareness? It is almost as if we are trying to write the dictionary definition before we know enough to complete the job (which is not necessarily a bad thing, unless we assume that by making a choice, we have, ipso facto, filled in the previously-incomplete knowledge.) I definitely take issue with Chalmers' opening sentence of his final paragraph: "… A final consideration in favor of simple systems having experience: if experience is truly a fundamental property, it seems natural for it to be widespread." I feel he is putting the cart before the horse here - something that seems quite common in the philosophy of mind - by first deciding that experience is a fundamental property, and then using it to justify the assumption that it is widespread. This strikes me as almost circular, as it seems one could at least as reasonably justify it being fundamental on account of the arguments for it being ubiquitous.