Or where is the cutoff point? — Benj96

I would say plants are not, but I'm not at all sure about that, given recent discoveries. So I'll only say that plankton probably are not, bacteria probably not, but amoeba and paramecia are. They respond to stimuli and environmental conditions; actively seek food and favourable temperature. They 'know' what's inside and outside of their membrane (skin) and what their physical requirements are. To me, that's awareness the difference between 'self' and 'other', and that's how I define consciousness.

Finally, do we not ultimately base this in the "how much of us do we see in them?" — Benj96

Not necessarily, because some people deny consciousness even to dogs (contrary to the evidence of their own experience) and human babies. I don't know why that is - I don't know why they should be so jealous of this most attainable and least reducible commodity.

Being conscious and having a concept of selfhood is very different, I'd say many or most animals have consciousness, I mean it makes sense to say "the dog was knocked unconscious", right?

A concept of self is much more rare and specific, human babies clearly don't have it in my opinion, I would even say it's more of an idea that we are taught as opposed to an inborn attribute.

Is a plant conscious because it can, and never fail to, grow toward a source of light and solve a maze, granted over time, humans would struggle to? Simple because we can't communicate with a plant due to it having no mammalian brain organs, that we recognize, it's just a plant?

What about a severely disabled person who can basically only respond and react to stimuli such as pain, hunger, light, shock, etc? Are they conscious?

What is consciousness, really. An excellent, if not tired prospect. "I think, therefore I am" or "I am, therefore I think". A worm tills the ground, knowing neither sleep nor gender, yet makes for an excellent buddy to procure a tasty trout from a nearby river. Though I doubt if worms could speak they would have very much to say! Or would they?

Unfortunately I have no yes or no answer for you, at present that is, rather some, what I believe to relevant if not interesting musings for your consideration, as shown above.

Is a plant conscious because it can, and never fail to, grow toward a source of light and solve a maze — Outlander

Recent science indicates that trees and other vegetation in a forest communicate with one another through a complex network of fungi. You could consider that the brain of a communal entity. Whether individual plants have similar capacities is doubtful but not impossible. (Bad news for conscientious vegetarians!)

What about a severely disabled person who can basically only respond and react to stimuli such as pain, hunger, light, shock, etc? Are they conscious? — Outlander

If they react, yes. If they're catatonic or in a coma, you can't tell.

I doubt if worms could speak they would have very much to say! Or would they? — Outlander

"Stop the pain!" comes to mind, quickly followed by "I want to stay alive." The trout would say much the same, and so would the man.

I'm not sure I agree. But want to extend the discussion to you. If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96

Seeing consciousness as paradigmatically human is so limiting. If I allow myself to be aware of a spectrum of consciousness that extends far below my familiarity, I likewise open my intellect to the possibilities of consciousness far beyond my imagination.

How come there's been no delineation here between Consciousness and Sentience?

It seems to me anything responding to outside stimuli is conscious, in some sense, but only beings with 'experience' can be considered sentient. Seems to clear up the mess for the most part...

A concept of self is much more rare and specific, human babies clearly don't have it in my opinion, I would even say it's more of an idea that we are taught as opposed to an inborn attribute. — goremand

I do think it's fair to say, though, that the capacity is peculiar to some specific type.

I'm not sure I agree. But want to extend the discussion to you. If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96

I think a better word that 'conscious' might be 'sentient'. Sentience refers to the capacity to perceive and experience sensations or feelings, such as pain, pleasure, emotions, and basic awareness of one's surroundings. Sentience does not necessarily imply a high level of cognitive or self-awareness. It can exist in organisms that react to stimuli and have some form of subjective experience but do not possess complex thought processes or self-awareness.

Consciousness is a more complex and multifaceted concept. It includes self-awareness, the ability to think, reason, reflect, and have a sense of identity and an ongoing stream of thoughts and experiences.
Consciousness involves a higher level of cognitive functioning and is often associated with the ability to introspect, make decisions, and have a deep awareness of one's own mental state and the external world.

I'm inclined to say that all sentient beings have a primitive sense of self in that they have to distinguish themselves from their environment, seek sustenance, avoid danger, and so on. Plainly many simple creatures lack conscious awareness in the sense that humans and higher animals have it (dogs, whales, birds, elephants, etc) so are not self-conscious in the same sense. (Arthur Schopenhauer published a book on the idea that simple creatures are like somnambulists, sleep-walkers, who execute sophisticated behaviours, like a spider building a web, with no awareness of what they're doing.)

In any case, I recognise an ontological distinction between sentient beings, plant life, and rational sentient beings such as humans, which I think is often called into question.

From what I understand from cognitive science, the hierarchy is Consciousness->Sentience->whatever you want to call higher-level functions of sentient beings such as higher primates.

Consciousness only entails awareness.
Sentience requires feelings about that awareness.
Higher-level functions require something more. Rationality?

Sentience refers to the capacity to perceive and experience sensations or feelings, such as pain, pleasure, emotions, and basic awareness of one's surroundings. — Wayfarer

The oddest word out there is 'emotions'. What humans mean by that word is ambiguous - when not prejudicial - in reference to the experience of non-humans. Anything with nerves, or even primitive chemical receptors, perceive sensation, differentiate beneficial from harmful environmental conditions, seek the first while avoiding the second.
Whether a negative input can be called 'pleasure' or 'pain' is problematic: we use these words imprecisely and hardly ever attempt to draw a comprehensible distinction between the perception of harmful input and the experience of pain.
'Basic awareness' is evident in any organism that actively responds to change in its environment (It's not probable that sunflowers and morning glories are active in their response to sunlight, but it's evident that a paramecium moves away from negative chemical stimuli.)

I very much doubt the elements of that definition come as a package. Rather, I think they're consequent and cumulative, as evolution built on simple capabilities and equipment to produce ever more complex ones. No solid lines in between; just continuity.

No solid lines in between; just continuity. — Vera Mont

I think the leap from inorganic matter to organisms is just that - a leap. Says Ernst Mayr, one of the heavyweight biologists of the 20th Century, says 'The discovery of the genetic code was a breakthrough of the first order. It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’

Consciousness only entails awareness.
Sentience requires feelings about that awareness. — AmadeusD

I had rather thought it was the opposite. Crabs and lobsters are sentient beings, but would we call them 'consciously aware'?

If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? — Benj96

No. All living things are responsive, some – relatively very few – are "conscious" (and only intermittenly).

Or where is the cutoff point?

For me "the cutoff of "consciousness" would be any organism with at least a central nervous system sufficiently complex enough to generate a phenomenal self model (the function of which being to facilitate adaptively coordinating the organism's behavior with both external and internal stimuli) by interacting with an environment. I suspect this subset of organisms includes many (though not all or most) mammals like primates, cetaceans, elephantidae ... canines, felines, ursidae (bears), etc; and even apparently cephalopods.

And why?

If "consciousness" suggests more than just some degree of (i) awareness or (ii) self-awareness but also (iii) self-awareness of others-as-self-aware-selves, then "conscious" organisms have to have biological capabilities – repertoire of behaviors – complex enough to recognize other "conscious" organisms as "conscious" organisms like themselves (with a self) rather by reflex-instinct being incapable of discerning other "conscious" organisms from living food or waste.

Finally, do we not ultimately base this in the 'how much of us do we see in them?'

A theory of mind. It's all we have to go on with each other since "consciousness" is (intractably?) subjective; otherwise we humans are all just zombies to one another.

Recent science indicates that trees and other vegetation in a forest communicate with one another through a complex network of fungi. You could consider that the brain of a communal entity. Whether individual plants have similar capacities is doubtful but not impossible — Vera Mont

:up: :up:

I very much doubt the elements of that definition come as a package. Rather, I think they're consequent and cumulative, as evolution built on simple capabilities and equipment to produce ever more complex ones. No solid lines in between; just continuity. — Vera Mont

:fire: ... like the simplistic fossil-picture of the reptilian, mammalian & sapient layers of the human brain.

I think many do, but I am going off what I understand is used in the field..

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/sentience#:~:text=Sentience%20is%20the%20capacity%20to,From%3A%20Neuroscience%2C%202022

"Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, to have affective consciousness, subjective states that have a positive or negative valence (Chandroo et al., 2004)"

To my mind, this indicates something more than merely awareness, or 'thinking' which consciousness entails. A crab would be conscious, but has no subjective sense of desire or aversion, merely a drive to a biologically necessary outcome (toward survival).

(also, i've heard the term Sapience to refer to 'rationality' or whatever it is we're discussing as a 'higher' form of whichever of the above two is, in fact, the more peculiar).

I think the leap from inorganic matter to organisms is just that - a leap. — Wayfarer

Where does evolution begin? Did inanimate matter evolve? If not, how is this relevant?

Crabs and lobsters are sentient beings, but would we call them 'consciously aware'? — Wayfarer

Why wouldn't we?

If "consciousness" suggests more than just some degree of (i) awareness or (ii) self-awareness but also (iii) self-awareness of others-as-self-aware-selves, then "conscious" organisms have to have biological capabilities – repertoire of behaviors – complex enough to recognize other "conscious" organisms as "conscious" organisms like themselves (with a self) — 180 Proof

I think this requires a level of intelligence and reasoning far beyond mere consciousness.

(also, i've heard the term Sapience to refer to 'rationality' or whatever it is we're discussing as a 'higher' form of whichever of the above two is, in fact, the more peculiar). — AmadeusD

I think that's what I mean in the above. An organism can be awake, register changes, respond to stimuli, without thinking. It can do all that, plus feel some level of fear and need, without thinking. It can do all that, become aware that other active things in its environment can be pursued or evaded, without understanding that they, too, are aware of this. I don't think a cat realizes that the injured mouse or bird in its mouth is anything more than food or a plaything. It takes a pretty high level of cognition to identify another organism as being like itself. Humans have yet to master this feat with any consistency of application.

Where does evolution begin? — Vera Mont

When I work that out, I’ll be sure to invite you to my Nobel Ceremony. Although I’ve always been rather drawn to the charmingly-named panspermia, the theory that organic compounds are dispersed throughout interstellar space and combine in various forms wherever the conditions are suitable.

The sources I consulted put sentience before consciousness, but it’s contested. Sapience is supposed to represent wisdom - the Latin ‘sapientia’ is distinguished from ‘scientia’.

When I work that out, I’ll be sure to invite you to my Nobel Ceremony. — Wayfarer

Is it the current scientific consensus that inanimate matter evolves from to simple to complex in a similar pattern to organisms?

Fair enough. I've only seen takes on Sentience that include affective, subjectively "positive or negative valence"-type consciousness so that was my start point.

I think this requires a level of intelligence and reasoning far beyond mere consciousness. — Vera Mont

Cats & dogs seem intelligent enough. Maybe what I wrote wasn't clear – there wasn't anything in that post about "mere consciousness".

Is it the current scientific consensus that inanimate matter evolves from to simple to complex in a similar pattern to organisms? — Vera Mont

I don't know if it's a consensus. That is the theory of a-biogenesis (literally 'life from non-living'.) It is of course one of the burning questions of the Creationism culture wars - ID people say that life must originate with divine intelligence, whereas scientific naturalism of course sees no such requirement.

But there's another point, which is that the theory of evolution doesn't account for how life originated. Given there are species, it explores how they evolve but it doesn't really provide an account of how it started. There's a often-quoted letter by Charles Darwin musing about the origin of life in a 'warm little pond' but it was not a serious effort at theorising. I think some of the current favourites are undersea vents, where complex chemicals are subjected to a big range of conditions, although I'm hazy on the detail.

Philosophically, I'm of the view that organisms are categorically different to inorganic matter in a variety of ways - they seek homeostasis, heal from injury, grow, replicate, and (naturally) evolve into new species. I'm not a fan of the attitude that as everything is created from the table of elements, that there is no essential difference between, say, rocks and microbes. I think there is.

I had rather thought it was the opposite. Crabs and lobsters are sentient beings, but would we call them 'consciously aware'? — Wayfarer

The question isn't whether we would call them consciously aware, but whether they are. (What is it like to be a bat?) The problem lies in attempting to apply a standard to something that we know exists across a spectrum, from the standpoint of our own existence which operates from a specific portion of that spectrum. Indeed, we can see the spectrum of consciousness evolve in the individual human mind from infancy. In fact, we have all experienced it. If it is possible to be "less conscious" (but still conscious) it is also possible to be "more conscious".

Per my earlier post, it makes no sense to be restrictive in the definition.

That is the theory of a-biogenesis (literally 'life from non-living'.) — Wayfarer

The great leap to which referred earlier. What I'm asking is: had the non-life been evolving to that point, or did evolution begin there, like a biological big bang?

But there's another point, which is that the theory of evolution doesn't account for how life originated. — Wayfarer

So what? I thought nobody attributed conscious to non-life.

Philosophically, I'm of the view that organisms are categorically different to inorganic matter in a variety of ways - they seek homeostasis, heal from injury, grow, replicate, and (naturally) evolve into new species. — Wayfarer

That's what I said! So, there is no disagreement here.

Contrary to some posts, reaction to the environment as mediated by metabolism (chemistry) is not consciousness. That is at best called responsiveness. After all, throw water on a pile of salt. The salt is (chemically) responding to its environment by disappearing!
Consciousness is a cognitive process, so while it is debatable whether some beings with really primitive nervous systems such as worms are conscious, single-celled organism and even sponges are surely not conscious — we are not panpsychists, are we?
I think the ability to problem-solve can be helpful to determine consciousness. A plant may solve a labyrinth by following the path that has greatest brightness, but we know it will always choose that path because the growth pattern of a plant is estimulated by light. We may give a geometric puzzle to a raven and each raven may try to solve it a different way, we don't know how they will try first; possibility of error and the ability to randomly choose a method may indicate that some thinking is going on.

I think some of the current favourites are undersea vents, where complex chemicals are subjected to a big range of conditions, although I'm hazy on the detail. — Wayfarer

Chemiosynthetic theory, where the first living beings were thermophilic procrarionta who dwelt in volcanic ridges.
Half of the scientific terms above may have been misspelt.

I think there is. — Wayfarer

Typically metabolism with self-replication is used to separate life from non-life.

I mean it makes sense to say "the dog was knocked unconscious" — goremand

This sentence might be surprisingly helpful. Can we knock a sponge unconscious? Killing it does not count.

Cats & dogs seem intelligent enough. — 180 Proof

Oh, yes. I was talking about the sophisticated mental feat of recognizing another as being a self, like themselves. Whether fish understand this within their own species, we don't read their behaviour well enough to be sure; social species with which we can't communicate effectively, obviously do. But we can communicate with exceptionally clever birds, like parrots and crows: they recognize us as sentient.
Domestic cats and dogs have a greater capacity for communicating across species gaps (I find that quite remarkable, actually), as they do with us. Clearly they recognize one another and us as being just as self-aware as they are, to have individual personalities, temperaments and volition. Within their social group, they have friends, rivals, status; they know which family member is most inclined to play, to snuggle with, to open doors or cans on demand, etc.
But this recognition doesn't seem to extend to prey - in this, they are very like humans - and probably all predators: they categorize and objectify selectively.

Contrary to some posts, reaction to the environment as mediated by metabolism (chemistry) is not consciousness. — Lionino

Intentionality, however, is a widely accepted property possessed by conscious beings. The property of being directed towards something, as in behavior or speech about something.

Just started reading this thread. Sorry if I'm repeating what's been said.

Being conscious and having a concept of selfhood is very different — goremand

I agree. I like Nagel’s definition in What is it like to be a bat?

But fundamentally an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism – something it is like for the organism. — Nagel

I don’t see a concept of selfhood as being necessary for that. The concept of self is certainly an aspect of human consciousness, and likely other animals. But not necessarily a requirement of consciousness in general.

I mean it makes sense to say "the dog was knocked unconscious", right? — goremand

In Being You: A New Science of Consciousness, Anil Seth discusses many ways the word consciousness has been used, and differentiates between wakefulness and consciousness. The dog might be dreaming, which is a state of consciousness, while knocked out.

A concept of self is much more rare and specific, human babies clearly don't have it in my opinion, I would even say it's more of an idea that we are taught as opposed to an inborn attribute. — goremand

I don't know if you mean taught in the sense of someone literally setting out to teach that lesson. I suspect not, since I've never heard of anyone doing so. I assume you mean taught while interacting with others, which i agree with. I doubt someone raised without the slightest human contact, or interaction from whatever machines kept it alive, would develop a sense of self. Perhaps hearing ideas from outside our own heads is key to noticing self. The idea that there is no self without other.

I'm not sure I agree. But want to extend the discussion to you. If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96

I believe there are 2 conceptually distinct matters here.

First, there is the question of subjective experience - whether a being has sense experiences like taste, vision, etc.: that is, "what it is like" phenomena. For example, if one lies on the grass and gazes up at a cloudless sky, one experiences "what it is like" to see light in the blue range of wavelengths. And that "what it is like-ness" is different when you look at something that produces light of red wavelengths.

Second, there is the matter of a "me" from which, as you say, is the point of reference for evaluations of the world.

I think one can easily imagine an entity (whether an animal or some automated system) that has a "me", but does not have subjective experiences. My point is that you are talking, it seems to me, about 2 different things.

Assuming you accept my analysis, which of these 2 issues is of interest to you?

If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96

A rock is moved only by external forces. But a living organism is self-moving and self-sustaining to various degrees. So in order to continue to live, it must be able to interact with its environment for sustenance. On another thread, we discussed how Venus fly-catchers and earthworms have rudimentary senses to help them obtain nutrients. Therefore, it's essential for animated matter to be aware (to some degree) of what's going-on around it. That's what senses are for. And the human brain/mind is merely an advanced sensory organ.

Therefore I would guess that "all living things" are at least minimally conscious. But, it's possible that only the more highly-developed (brainy) animals are Self-Conscious. So Consciousness covers a broad range of Knowingness, As to where is the cut-off, your guess is as good as mine. As to why consciousness is rampant on our little ball of earth, and seems to be absent in the other 99.99% of the Cosmos : who's asking, and why? :wink:

I agree. I like Nagel’s definition in What is it like to be a bat? — Patterner

I think we've talked about this already, but I don't like that definition at all. Bundling phenomenological properties into the definition kills the word for me.

I assume you mean taught while interacting with others, which i agree with. I doubt someone raised without the slightest human contact, or interaction from whatever machines kept it alive, would develop a sense of self. Perhaps hearing ideas from outside our own heads is key to noticing self. The idea that there is no self without other. — Patterner

Yeah pretty much, having a pet dog might be enough even. I think the usefulness of the concept comes from drawing conclusions about others from observing yourself.

I also don't think having a concept of self is such a special thing, computers have it is as well ("This PC").

A rock is moved only by external forces. But a living organism is self-moving and self-sustaining to various degrees. — Gnomon

What about a roomba? They need to crawl back to their recharge station occasionally to sustain themselves.

..all sentient beings are animals, but not all animals are sentient.

Article

A sea urchin has no nerve system, yet it can identify the presence of a predator and scoop sand and gravel on top of itself as camouflage to reduce the risk of detection. So one might ask if and how important is the complexity of a nerve system for something to be conscious?

I'm thinking the "what it is like to be..." is due to subjective experience. Kind of the same thing. If I did not have subjective experience, there would be nothing it is like to be me.

Do you think consciousness is subjective experience, but it doesn't lead to "what it is like to be..."? If not, if you don't think consciousness is subjective experience, and you don't think it is the concept of self, then what do you think consciousness is?

Apologies if you've told me this before. My 60 year old brain doesn't retain what it once would have.