If you’d like to go all the way down this rabbit hole there’s panpsychism, which posits that consciousness is a continuous scale with “zero” literally being down in the elementary particles. So even a single molecule is not quite zero on the scale, having an extremely minuscule degree of consciousness to it.
I actually kind of like this because it means we don’t have to try to put that zero point at some other arbitrary location.
Although I think it’s probably not a bad idea to think about it this way, it does create the next unhelpful question of “when is something conscious enough?”, so it kinda dodges the hard question. So it simultaneously is useful and useless to think about it in this way.
I think your question is equally poorly defined regardless of where the zero point is placed. Enough for what? What is this threshold for?
There are often things in nature that have natural “division points” along some particular spectrum, where conditions abruptly change (phase changes in chemicals when they pass through transition temperatures, for example) or where you have natural gaps where you don’t find many examples because of dynamic feedback effects (the gap between planets and dwarf planets when it comes to their ability to clear their orbital neighborhoods, for example). It’s possible that once we can actually measure consciousness and put a number to it we’ll find that there are similar gaps, for whatever reason. That would be a very interesting and useful thing to know about. But that’s putting the cart before the horse, we don’t know how to measure consciousness in a numeric way yet. So any such patterns in the results are purely hypothetical.
Yeah but that’s exactly what I mean when I say that defining consciousness as a scale brings us no closer to the (poorly defined) questions we have about these things. We don’t even know if we should define it as a one-dimensional number.
“When is something conscious?”
“Well it’s a scale so once it has a high enough consciousness number”
“Okay, so at what point in the scale do we consider it conscious?”
“Well that depends on how you want to define ‘conscious’”
So you get stuck with essentially the same question. And I think that expressing it as a scale also runs into the problem of “how do you measure it then?” which basically requires answering the original consciousness-question again.
You’re not wrong, and it’s a really interesting question. The definition of life that I learned in science class includes things like: homeostasis, response to stimuli, reproduction, metabolism, cell growth, adaptation, cell signaling, and death. Rivers adapt, respond to stimuli, and can “die”; maybe reproduce, achieve homeostasis, and metabolize; but don’t have cells. Crystals reproduce and maybe metabolize, but not the rest.
That’s a faulty definition, because it doesn’t clearly define viruses as alive or not alive, but it’s still useful, because the things that we can categorize as alive (or sometimes alive, in the case of viruses) under it share a lot of common characteristics that make sense to study together.
Rivers and crystals have some of these characteristics, but so does everything in nature- a star metabolizes and dies, a planet achieves homeostasis and responds to stimuli, and asteroids traveling fast enough can “reproduce” by hitting another stellar object hard enough to break one or both of them into smaller pieces. Including everything in the natural world under the umbrella of life doesn’t help us understand the world around us better according to our current understanding of the universe.
I think it’s impossible for us to determine truth, and the best we can do is an approximate theory that holds up with new information. Even when we know our model is untrue (like how we know classifying species the way we do is generally too rigid, or the fact that there’s no such thing as a fish), we can still gather information better under that model than without it.
Or so we think, maybe we’d have a much clearer understanding of the world if carcinology fell under entomology instead of marine biology.
As for consciousness, that’s even harder to define.
That’s true. Every living organism could be conscious on some level if you think about it.
If you’d like to go all the way down this rabbit hole there’s panpsychism, which posits that consciousness is a continuous scale with “zero” literally being down in the elementary particles. So even a single molecule is not quite zero on the scale, having an extremely minuscule degree of consciousness to it.
I actually kind of like this because it means we don’t have to try to put that zero point at some other arbitrary location.
Although I think it’s probably not a bad idea to think about it this way, it does create the next unhelpful question of “when is something conscious enough?”, so it kinda dodges the hard question. So it simultaneously is useful and useless to think about it in this way.
I think your question is equally poorly defined regardless of where the zero point is placed. Enough for what? What is this threshold for?
There are often things in nature that have natural “division points” along some particular spectrum, where conditions abruptly change (phase changes in chemicals when they pass through transition temperatures, for example) or where you have natural gaps where you don’t find many examples because of dynamic feedback effects (the gap between planets and dwarf planets when it comes to their ability to clear their orbital neighborhoods, for example). It’s possible that once we can actually measure consciousness and put a number to it we’ll find that there are similar gaps, for whatever reason. That would be a very interesting and useful thing to know about. But that’s putting the cart before the horse, we don’t know how to measure consciousness in a numeric way yet. So any such patterns in the results are purely hypothetical.
Yeah but that’s exactly what I mean when I say that defining consciousness as a scale brings us no closer to the (poorly defined) questions we have about these things. We don’t even know if we should define it as a one-dimensional number.
“When is something conscious?”
“Well it’s a scale so once it has a high enough consciousness number”
“Okay, so at what point in the scale do we consider it conscious?”
“Well that depends on how you want to define ‘conscious’”
So you get stuck with essentially the same question. And I think that expressing it as a scale also runs into the problem of “how do you measure it then?” which basically requires answering the original consciousness-question again.
@bookie @gedaliyah And rivers and crystals are alive, if you define “alive” broadly enough.
What, then, makes a given definition useful? True?
What does it mean to be conscious?
You’re not wrong, and it’s a really interesting question. The definition of life that I learned in science class includes things like: homeostasis, response to stimuli, reproduction, metabolism, cell growth, adaptation, cell signaling, and death. Rivers adapt, respond to stimuli, and can “die”; maybe reproduce, achieve homeostasis, and metabolize; but don’t have cells. Crystals reproduce and maybe metabolize, but not the rest.
That’s a faulty definition, because it doesn’t clearly define viruses as alive or not alive, but it’s still useful, because the things that we can categorize as alive (or sometimes alive, in the case of viruses) under it share a lot of common characteristics that make sense to study together.
Rivers and crystals have some of these characteristics, but so does everything in nature- a star metabolizes and dies, a planet achieves homeostasis and responds to stimuli, and asteroids traveling fast enough can “reproduce” by hitting another stellar object hard enough to break one or both of them into smaller pieces. Including everything in the natural world under the umbrella of life doesn’t help us understand the world around us better according to our current understanding of the universe.
I think it’s impossible for us to determine truth, and the best we can do is an approximate theory that holds up with new information. Even when we know our model is untrue (like how we know classifying species the way we do is generally too rigid, or the fact that there’s no such thing as a fish), we can still gather information better under that model than without it.
Or so we think, maybe we’d have a much clearer understanding of the world if carcinology fell under entomology instead of marine biology.
As for consciousness, that’s even harder to define.