Chemical interaction to stimuli is not "consciousness".

You could say anything theoretically but until you show me one..

It does and it doesn't. Obviously someone about to faint or pass out or having a stroke is less conscious than you or I as it is traditionally defined or at least perceived.

Interesting branch arguments though. A healthy and awake baby is just as conscious as a distinguished PhD performing surgery. Right?

Quarks have a very small degree of consciousness — Eugen

Let's pretend to take that seriously for a moment. What are quarks conscious about?

What are quarks conscious about? — Wheatley

.....? I have absolutely no idea.

Better question: What does it mean to say a particular quark is conscious?

A healthy and awake baby is just as conscious as a distinguished PhD performing surgery. Right? — Outlander

No, but I think a normal person is just as conscious as a distinguished PhD performing surgery.

I don't know. I am here to understand these things, not to provide answers haha

You're probably getting way more out of this forum than you are putting into it.

(I don't expect this to go down well.) :scream:

You're probably getting way more out of this forum than you are putting into it. — Wheatley

Is there a rule in this sense?

No, you should be fine as long as your follow the Site Guidelines. It's also important to know your rights. :wink:

*hint* You don't have any. :lol:

IF quarks are conscious, do they sleep? Can they be anaesthetised? Can they be knocked unconscious by a blow to the... string?

Thank you, I have read them, I find them very reasonable, and so far I think I've done a good job in respecting them. This is why I haven't been warned or banned. Cheers!

Really good questions!

IF quarks are conscious, do they sleep? Can they be anaesthetised? Can they be knocked unconscious by a blow to the... string? — Banno

Good questions!

Not that I want you banned, or anything. :cool:

I think they should be treated as part of a reductio ad absurdum. Hence, Panpsychism fails.

I think they should be treated as part of a reductio ad absurdum. Hence, Panpsychism fails. — Banno

I actually find your argument pretty reasonable. But we can apply this vice-versa as well: how come elements with 0 consciousness can form something conscious? I have heard the ''emergent'' theory, but I don't believe in magic.

IF quarks are conscious, do they sleep? Can they be anaesthetised? Can they be knocked unconscious by a blow to the... string? — Banno

1. IF quarks are conscious, do they sleep? - no
2. Can they be anesthetized? - no
3. Can they be knocked unconscious by a blow to the... string? - that yes! Kidding.

Maybe there is a ''minimum'' degree of consciousness that cannot be reduced to ''unconsciousness''. Case in which panpsychism is absolutely true.

Not that I want you banned, or anything. :cool: — Wheatley

0 warnings in 3 years. You're worrying too much for me, let the moderators do their job. If they warn/ban me, it means I did something wrong. If they don't, it means those who accused me were wrong. :)

how come elements with 0 consciousness can form something conscious? — Eugen

You wake up, don't you? From zero to conscious.

Notice that you can loose consciousness while quarks cannot.

I'm not going with this. It relies on a muddled understanding of consciousness.

You wake up, don't you? From zero to conscious — Banno

Exactly because the matter that my brain is made of has conscious properties. My consciousness is a sum of many irreductible conscious elements, so my consciousness is a state or a combination of those elementary things. When I sleep, that state is no longer there and it re-emerges when I wake up.
Of course, this is definitely just a scenario, but what am I trying to say is that your argument does not exclude the existance of elementary conscious elements, your assumption does. It's like saying "my castle is a pile of bricks, but the bricks lack bricks properties."

for some reason you gave me the impression that you were a new here.

But we could also say that more complex organisms would be more conscious than we are. — Eugen

Are you "more conscious" now than when you were a child? I know I am. Consciousness is certainly a spectrum.

Hmmm... I know I realise stuff that I didn't before. But is this process infinite? I mean yeah, I am more conscious than I was when I was a child, but I would say I am not more than I was 10 years ago. I know more stuff in the fields I am interested in, but I am not sure if that is the equivalent of being more conscious.

Something could be "conscious of more" than we are.

Something could be "conscious of more" than we are. — jorndoe

I find that to be a true moment of inspiration. Great point!

IF quarks are conscious, do they sleep? Can they be anaesthetised? Can they be knocked unconscious by a blow to the... string? — Banno

When you sleep, you dream. Are you conscious when dreaming? How do you know when you're unconscious? Even when asleep you are jolted awake by a loud sound or being touched. Are you conscious of loud sounds and a being touched when unconscious? You are only conscious of being conscious, never of being unconscious. Is a neuron conscious?

I know I realise stuff that I didn't before. But is this process infinite? I mean yeah, I am more conscious than I was when I was a child, but I would say I am not more than I was 10 years ago. I know more stuff in the fields I am interested in, but I am not sure if that is the equivalent of being more conscious. — Eugen

Most change/growth processes exhibit a rapid initial phase followed by a "decreasing gains" phase. Imagine if you had gone to work in a factory at 18, then at 40 decided to return to school and ended up getting a PhD in political economy. I think in that case you might well experience an expansion of consciousness akin to that of childhood again.

I'm currently reading Dewey's book Human Nature and Conduct: On Social Psychology and Habit. It's a fascinating look at how much of what we think of as our "intelligence" is a function of our habits of social interaction and habits of thought. Break out of your old habits and you will experience a revolution of consciousness......

Eugen
221
Panpsychism states that consciousness is basically all around. Quarks have a very small degree of consciousness, ants larger and humans much larger. But we could also say that more complex organisms would be more conscious than we are.
But to be honest, I don't know if ''more consciouss'' even makes sense. — Eugen

Yeah...ya gotta wonder about that.

But some really fine minds once posited, "A more perfect Union..."...and that doesn't seem to make much sense either.

Panpsychism states that consciousness is basically all around. Quarks have a very small degree of consciousness, ants larger and humans much larger. But we could also say that more complex organisms would be more conscious than we are.
But to be honest, I don't know if ''more consciouss'' even makes sense. — Eugen

Panpsychists apply the term ‘conscious’ very loosely - the idea is that there is a kind of proto-conscious interaction existing to a lesser and lesser degree in less complex systems. I use the term ‘system’ because the kind of panpsychism I am interested in ties in with information theory. But I think it isn’t just a matter of complexity - it’s about integrated systems of awareness, connection and collaboration, which is a particular type of complexity.

I don’t think ‘more conscious’ is particularly helpful, though. Consciousness as it is usually understood has the capacity to occur only within an as yet uncertain range or pattern of integrated complexity, and the level of awareness, connection and collaboration occurring in the system may move it in and out of that range for a number of reasons. What occurs in terms of awareness, connection and collaboration at a less complex (or indeed a more complex) level of integration would need to be something other than ‘consciousness’, in my view.

Makes sense.