I don't see why robotic entities can't be created through non-biological processes. — RogueAI

Well, my idea is that there is something special about biological entities, in that they are separated from their environment. That's what I mean when I say they have an inside and an outside. And a robot isn't separated from its environment in the necessary way.

When did consciousness first arise? — RogueAI

After bacteria, before baboons. Maybe around 500 million years ago? Why do you ask?

I am assuming that you accept the fact that you are made up of multiple living cells. I assume that you don’t regard a single cell as ‘being alive’ in the same manner that multicellular organisms are alive.

It is not a huge leap from there to suggest something similar for consciousness given that we know so very little about consciousness and that it may just be that the rudiments of consciousness exist in a singular neuron just like a single cell it rudimentary to a living organism.

Maybe a combination of emergence and panpsychism makes more sense than either alone? I would put the idea that ‘atoms’ possess consciousness as reaching the realms of fantasy simply because to say such is to equate animal consciousness not merely with a neuron but with fantasies.

Inexplicably consciousness arises. We know that much. It seems pretty clear than not all life possesses ‘consciousness’ like we do, so to call anything different ‘consciousness’ to me seems misleading.

As another comparison we could look at how human language functions compared to simple organisms that have a means of communication. In fact many other animals possess elements of what we call ‘language’ yet humans appear to be fairly unique in that they possess these elements in a combination that allows for complex communication.

Panpsychism is an interesting idea that I believe some people take way too far, or misuse the term ‘consciousness’ when talking about atoms being conscious. It is not even a theory in its current state just an idea that could potentially open up other ideas that are more applicable.

If someone puts forward a model of panpsychism I’d be interested to look at it. As is it is just philosophical speculation with some people taking it into the realms of fantasy.

Just because something is fascinating doesn't mean it's fiction. Materialists would do well to recognize this.

We can't even explore ideas, because everything interesting is beyond the skeptics meager imagination.

That does not mean anything.

Why even assume matter exists in the first place? Idealism solves so many of these problems: minds don't come from matter, everything is mind. Life is but a dream.

It does. You just aren't deep enough to get it. You're shallow and you talk a lot, and all of your discussions are predicated in nonsense drivel you proclaim to be common sense.

I admit it probably means something to you. All I can say is you need to push yourself harder if you wish to express it further and wider.

I can only suggest trying to talk more and explain more. Refinement will come in fits and starts at first but that shouldn’t discourage you I hope.

I won’t bother anymore because I seem to have bothered you.

Good luck. Genuinely.

After bacteria, before baboons. Maybe around 500 million years ago? Why do you ask? — Daemon

How do you know bacteria aren't conscious? Are insects conscious?

First you have to explain what you mean by ‘conscious’.

Something it is like to be that thing; having subjective experience; feeling things

I am assuming that you accept the fact that you are made up of multiple living cells. I assume that you don’t regard a single cell as ‘being alive’ in the same manner that multicellular organisms are alive. — I like sushi

A bacterium is a single-celled organism which I regard as being alive.

...we know so very little about consciousness and that it may just be that the rudiments of consciousness exist in a singular neuron just like a single cell is rudimentary to a living organism. — I like sushi

We know an astounding amount about consciousness. We know enough about the biological mechanisms of memory, an aspect of consciousness, to allow us to implant false memories in the minds of mice.

I'm not clear what point you're making with the talk of "rudiments", or your remarks about language.

Given that neurons seem damn important for thinking I’d rule out bacteria. Ants … they certainly do not appear to be conscious like I am and nor do dogs for that matter. Maybe they can be said to be ‘conscious’ in some rudimentary fashion and even have processing that could be called ‘thinking’ in some fashion? Who knows? Bees appear to be quite clever in some ways, btu appearances can be deceiving.

A bacterium is a single-celled organism which I regard as being alive. — Daemon

Me too.

How do you know bacteria aren't conscious? — RogueAI

A bacterium can swim towards a desirable chemical, say a food source. To do this it needs to able to tell whether the concentration of the chemical is rising or falling over time, which seems to require a memory, which is an aspect of consciousness.

However, we know in astounding detail how the bacterium does this, we can describe the process fully in terms of chemical reactions, without having to talk about the bacterium feeling, experiencing, being conscious. There's an explanation here: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(02)01424-0

I assume that you don’t regard a single cell as ‘being alive’ in the same manner that multicellular organisms are alive. — I like sushi

But you think of a single-celled bacteria as being alive.

I'm not clear what point you're making with the talk of "rudiments", or your remarks about language. — Daemon

In the cognitive neurosciences studies have been done that show markedly similar functions in communication in some species that can be seen in humans. Birds have one ‘component’ (we will call it) whilst other species have others (components such as melodies, learning, and grammatical structures) and we have them all.

But what's the relevance to panpsychism?

Yes? But I don’t regard a singular cell as anything like myself. Is that hard to understand? I am far more expansive in terms of living and interacting with the environment. I am a collection of singular cells in communion not merely an isolated single cell.

Given that neurons seem damn important for thinking I’d rule out bacteria. Ants … they certainly do not appear to be conscious like I am and nor do dogs for that matter. Maybe they can be said to be ‘conscious’ in some rudimentary fashion and even have processing that could be called ‘thinking’ in some fashion? Who knows? Bees appear to be quite clever in some ways, btu appearances can be deceiving. — I like sushi

There's the rub. We can only infer consciousness in anything other than ourselves. There can be no direct evidence of any consciousness other than our own. That makes me think science is useful in discovering conscious correlates, but has utterly failed (and will continue to fail) wrt to causal explanations.

Also, if insects are conscious, then we're getting pretty close to panpsychism.

Again, what's the relevance to the current discussion?

A bacterium can swim towards a desirable chemical, say a food source. To do this it needs to able to tell whether the concentration of the chemical is rising or falling over time, which seems to require a memory, which is an aspect of consciousness.

However, we know in astounding detail how the bacterium does this, we can describe the process fully in terms of chemical reactions, without having to talk about the bacterium feeling, experiencing, being conscious. There's an explanation here: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(02)01424-0 — Daemon

That doesn't answer the question. We might not have to talk about bacteria feeling things, but that doesn't mean bacteria don't feel things. How do you know they don't?

Because you asked (was it you?) why panpsychism is a reasonable idea so I tried to show that it reasonable to state that multicellular organisms are ‘living’ one a different level compared to single cells.

Panpsychism is more or less like this but it far more difficult to discern what is or is not in possession of consciousness.

How do you know they don't? — RogueAI

Why do you think they do?

I don’t know. I do know that everything displaying qualities I relate to consciousness possesses a brain (in order to ‘feel’).

I generally view a body as a requirement for consciousness too, but that is a whole other area.

Why do you think they do? — Daemon

I don't know if they do or not, but if they do, panpsychism is much more probable.

Also, if insects are conscious, then we're getting pretty close to panpsychism. — RogueAI

Yes, that is why I think it is a reasonable idea. We are limited in what we can and cannot say. When it gets stretched out to atoms though I just see that as a stretch too far (to say the least!).

Of course the whackiest ideas in the world may produce fruit. If evidence in the future gives more and more people a reason to explore it so be it.

I tried to show that it reasonable to state that multicellular organisms are ‘living’ on a different level compared to single cells. — I like sushi

But they are all living. And non-biological items aren't.

I don’t know. I do know that everything displaying qualities I relate to consciousness possesses a brain (in order to ‘feel’).

I generally view a body as a requirement for consciousness too, but that is a whole other area. — I like sushi

As an idealist, I disagree, but I realize my position is horribly unpopular, so maybe there's something to this "matter" idea. Everyone seems to think it exists.

:up:

So? What is your point. I am not going to discuss where life begins thanks! Consciousness is enough for now :D