“Conscious” means being aware of oneself, one’s surroundings, thoughts, or feelings, being awake, or acting with deliberate intention, like a “conscious effort”. It refers to subjective experience and internal knowledge, differentiating from unconsciousness (sleep, coma).
It’s a spectrum, sure. But the spectrum is between ants and humans; not animals and plants.
What does “aware” mean, or “knowledge”? I think those are going to be circular definitions, maybe filtered through a few other words like “comprehend” or “perceive”.
Does a plant act with deliberate intention when it starts growing from a seed?
To be clear, my beef is more with the definition of “conscious” being useless and/or circular in most cases. I’m not saying “woah, what if plants have thoughts dude” as in the meme, but whatever definition you come up with, you have to evaluate why it does or doesn’t include plants, simple animals, or AI.
What do “sense” and “perceived” mean? I think they both loop back to “aware”, and the reason I point that out is that circular definitions are useless. How can you say that plants lack a sense of self and consciousness, if you can’t even define those terms properly? What about crown shyness? Trees seem to be able to tell the difference between themselves and others.
As an example of the circularity, “sense” means (using Wiktionary, but pick your favorite if you don’t like it) “Any of the manners by which living beings perceive the physical world”. What does “perceive” mean? “To become aware of, through the physical senses”. So in your definition, “aware” loops back to “aware” (Wiktionary also has a definition of “sense” that just defines it as “awareness”, for a more direct route, too).
I meant that plants don’t have thoughts more in the sense of “woah, dude”, pushing back on something without any explanatory power. But really, how do you define “thought”? I actually think Wiktionary is slightly more helpful here, in that it defines “thought” as “A representation created in the mind without the use of one’s faculties of vision, sound, smell, touch, or taste”. That’s kind of getting to what I’ve commented elsewhere, with trying to come up with a more objective definition based around “world model”. Basing all of these definitions on “representation” or “world model” seems to the closest to an objective definition as we can get.
Of course, that brings up the question of “What is a model?” / “What does represent mean?”. Is that just pushing the circularity elsewhere? I think not, if you accept a looser definition. If anything has an internal state that appears to correlate to external state, then it has a world model, and is at some level “conscious”. You have to accept things that many people don’t want to, such as that AI is conscious of much of the universe (albeit experienced through the narrow peephole of human-written text). I just kind of embraced that though and said “sure, why not?”. Maybe it’s not satisfying philosophically, but it’s pragmatically useful.
The foundational idea behind what the user is talking about is called panpsychism, it’s the idea that consciousness or awareness is actually a fundamental quality of the universe like fields or forces, in that it’s in everything, but only complex systems have actual thoughts.
The theory(?) states that even a single electron or proton has a state of awareness, but without any functional way to remember any information or think it’s just like some kind of flash of experience like if you suddenly developed perpetual amnesia about literally everything… while you were hurtling through the universe at high speed. You would still have a conscious experience, it would just be radically limited in what that “means.”
I get the concept, but I don’t get the usefulness of it. It feels too close to people wishing The Force was real.
Guys. You are not getting your light sabers this way.
I’m not advocating for consciousness as a fundamental quality of the universe. I think that lacks explanatory power and isn’t really in the realm of science. I’m kind of coming at it the opposite way and pushing for a more concrete and empirical definition of consciousness.
“Conscious” means being aware of oneself, one’s surroundings, thoughts, or feelings, being awake, or acting with deliberate intention, like a “conscious effort”. It refers to subjective experience and internal knowledge, differentiating from unconsciousness (sleep, coma).
It’s a spectrum, sure. But the spectrum is between ants and humans; not animals and plants.
What does “aware” mean, or “knowledge”? I think those are going to be circular definitions, maybe filtered through a few other words like “comprehend” or “perceive”.
Does a plant act with deliberate intention when it starts growing from a seed?
To be clear, my beef is more with the definition of “conscious” being useless and/or circular in most cases. I’m not saying “woah, what if plants have thoughts dude” as in the meme, but whatever definition you come up with, you have to evaluate why it does or doesn’t include plants, simple animals, or AI.
Aware means it has a sense of self. They are circular because we use these words to define how that is perceived.
Plants do not act deliberately when they do anything, because they do not have a sense of self and are not conscious.
If you don’t think plants have thoughts then you agree they are not conscious.
What do “sense” and “perceived” mean? I think they both loop back to “aware”, and the reason I point that out is that circular definitions are useless. How can you say that plants lack a sense of self and consciousness, if you can’t even define those terms properly? What about crown shyness? Trees seem to be able to tell the difference between themselves and others.
As an example of the circularity, “sense” means (using Wiktionary, but pick your favorite if you don’t like it) “Any of the manners by which living beings perceive the physical world”. What does “perceive” mean? “To become aware of, through the physical senses”. So in your definition, “aware” loops back to “aware” (Wiktionary also has a definition of “sense” that just defines it as “awareness”, for a more direct route, too).
I meant that plants don’t have thoughts more in the sense of “woah, dude”, pushing back on something without any explanatory power. But really, how do you define “thought”? I actually think Wiktionary is slightly more helpful here, in that it defines “thought” as “A representation created in the mind without the use of one’s faculties of vision, sound, smell, touch, or taste”. That’s kind of getting to what I’ve commented elsewhere, with trying to come up with a more objective definition based around “world model”. Basing all of these definitions on “representation” or “world model” seems to the closest to an objective definition as we can get.
Of course, that brings up the question of “What is a model?” / “What does represent mean?”. Is that just pushing the circularity elsewhere? I think not, if you accept a looser definition. If anything has an internal state that appears to correlate to external state, then it has a world model, and is at some level “conscious”. You have to accept things that many people don’t want to, such as that AI is conscious of much of the universe (albeit experienced through the narrow peephole of human-written text). I just kind of embraced that though and said “sure, why not?”. Maybe it’s not satisfying philosophically, but it’s pragmatically useful.
The foundational idea behind what the user is talking about is called panpsychism, it’s the idea that consciousness or awareness is actually a fundamental quality of the universe like fields or forces, in that it’s in everything, but only complex systems have actual thoughts.
The theory(?) states that even a single electron or proton has a state of awareness, but without any functional way to remember any information or think it’s just like some kind of flash of experience like if you suddenly developed perpetual amnesia about literally everything… while you were hurtling through the universe at high speed. You would still have a conscious experience, it would just be radically limited in what that “means.”
I get the concept, but I don’t get the usefulness of it. It feels too close to people wishing The Force was real.
Guys. You are not getting your light sabers this way.
Sounds like anthropomorphism to me.
I’m not advocating for consciousness as a fundamental quality of the universe. I think that lacks explanatory power and isn’t really in the realm of science. I’m kind of coming at it the opposite way and pushing for a more concrete and empirical definition of consciousness.
So basically everything is tripping and only a few things can be legit sober?