Genady

One way, in theory, is if the group whom you benefit consists of your close relatives with whom you share genes. By benefiting them you help them to propagate their genes, some of which are your genes. Thus, you help them to propagate your genes including the genes responsible for this trait.

It did. Example: tortoise.

IOW, I would say that a signal is sent if something evolved because it helps others. But, Accordingly, I say that signal is not sent.

You mean there are no such yet?

This is exactly my point. I took a class on animal behavior about 12 years ago and I remember there were many examples of 'strange' behaviors and the difficulties to figure out their purpose, but at the end they all evolved to benefit the organism itself rather than others. Signals are picked up, but they are not sent.

I'd say that you send a signal if the signal has some added elements to it, e.g., you spend an extra energy to make it (I know that this can be difficult to determine) or while jumping you make V sign with the fingers of your right hand and O sign with your left. It is not necessarily conscious but something that evolved because it helps others to detect danger.

How do we know that they send these signals rather than the 'signals' being effects of the drought / disease / insect attacks, and trees evolved to respond to them?

Can lack of awareness of others be considered as awareness of the self?

Yes, it is clear now. Thanks.

OK. Then I don't know what the point of the quote was, but evidently it is immaterial for the discussion. My understanding of consciousness is as loose as anybody's, but I think that discussing 'consciousness' of something that does not have a brain is rather metaphorical.

Why don't you think that "consciousness" is being used loosely there?

Why not all of them?

See and feel without a nervous system - a loose definition indeed.

Evidently, I've misunderstood.

I don't think this assumption is as simple as it appears. Do humans have consciousness when they are unconscious? Under deep anesthesia? One week old? Before they are born? Etc. Seems to me that consciousness is whatever one wants it to be in a context. Here is an example from science: Understanding Plants - Part I: What a Plant Knows | Coursera Perhaps, consciousness does not need a general definition because it is not one concept, but a vague word. Its definition depends on its use in a context.

I'd be glad to try to answer this question if I knew what it refers to. Could it be a complete question here rather than references to bits and pieces of a conversation that occurred 2 weeks ago?

That's why we take care that it's not us:

Any news?

Among two other "crucial theories":

We can't know most of the future, most of the present, and most of the past. What is philosophical about this fact?

Why can't we? Why do you emphasize "will be"? Don't you mean that we can't know what is unknowable?

I don't think so. I think it is a very poor test. We know very well how AI works. Nowhere in its processes a new feature, e.g., consciousness appears. It is all very straightforward. Given enough time and paper, one could "dry run" AI manually, just like any other computer program. We know very poorly how human brain works. Perhaps when we understand that better, we'll see how a new feature, e.g., consciousness appears. This will be the test.

Fair enough. I should've said instead something like, "In that answer I've assumed..."

This is right. So, why I thought the clarification is needed? Just consider the extreme case where the whole mass is near the planet center and the rest of the planet is massless. As the body goes from the surface toward the center it just gets closer to the same mass. The gravitational force increases. In the other extreme case where the whole mass is in the surface shell and the planet is empty inside, the body will become weightless as soon as it crosses the surface. Ergo, the answer depends on the density distribution with the depth. Also, take a case where the entire mass is in the shell halfway down. As the body gets closer to that depth the gravity increases, and when it crosses that shell the gravity drops to 0. Ergo, the answer depends on the depth.

Sorry, I need to clarify. This answer assumes that the density is the same throughout the planet depth. In reality it is not so, of course. The answer depends on how the density changes with depth and might be different at different depths.