zapatos

This is a science site so we are interested in discussing the scientific aspects of consciousness. If you don't believe consciousness is a natural phenomenon, and thus supernatural, you are in the wrong place.

Well, this is a discussion site, so if you don't want to talk about it, it might be best not to bring up that particular topic.

Sure, I understand. If you clearly explain your position, can provide reason or evidence to support your position, and respond directly to the questions of others, you will get along great here even if others disagree with you. You also have the right to expect the same from others. If you don't know, simply say "I don't know". If you are shown to be in error, admit to it and move on. No one cares if someone makes a mistake; we all do it. If you mean "almost never", don't say "never". People will respond to the words you use, not the words you "meant" to use. This is a science site. Logic, reason and evidence are important, no matter the topic.

Who is "they"?

Do you have a recollection of begging for life before coming here?

Can you expand on this please? What is "crosstalk error"? What is "weight of its eventual public acceptance"? On what are you basing your conclusion that the 'error' seems to be related to the 'weight'?

I personally have no use for your diluted version of consciousness. It is so broad as to make it impractical. Similarly, I don't want to read an article about how shoe laces are made that starts with the assembly of Pangaea.

Peoples' identity is often tied to the group they belong to. It is incredibly important to be a part of that. That is where your friends are. You have a lot invested in the group. If you deny the beliefs of your group you are ostracizing yourself and cutting yourself off from an important part of your life. For many people it is better to not look too closely, or to entertain questions which in the long run can do you harm. I overlook things my family members do that I would find unacceptable in others. People vote for candidates in their political party who are clearly unqualified. It is a lot more common than many people recognize.

The above seems at odds with the below. Am I misunderstanding? That does seem to make the most sense. I am no expert on Evolution and wonder how individuals develop traits that are beneficial to the group, which of course then makes those traits beneficial for the individual in a round about way.

Would it be more accurate to say that something evolved to read the other's reactions, because it helps to avoid danger? I'm wondering how an organism would develop a trait to benefit someone else.

If you are implying a conscious decision to warn their neighbors I think we can safely assume that is not the case. Otherwise, it seems rather similar to other organisms. I see a snake strike at me and jump up in fear. My friends pick up the signal I sent and quickly jump up/scan the area/increase adrenaline flow/whatever. Did I send the signals of danger or were they the effects of a snake attack and people evolved to respond to them?

I don't know whether or not it is a universal trait. It was more meant as a description that gives us a 'pretty good' idea of the boundaries surrounding the concept of consciousness (as I've found 'consciousness' to be generally described). Thus, humans are conscious, rocks are not, and there is likely something in between where there will never be complete agreement on the definition. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ I am not suggesting this implies 'consciousness', but it tells me there seems to be a continuum of traits, and at some point we get a fuzzy line between consciousness and unconsciousness.

I don't think a plant is conscious either. But it has traits that may be useful to study when trying to understand consciousness. Similarly, studying planets without life may help us understand life on earth. The quote came from the course description you cited. I originally said consciousness had a loose definition. You responded by citing a course and suggesting it was an example of people going so far as to assign consciousness to plants. I then responded by saying it was a course suggesting senses, not consciousness. And then the death spiral of our conversation began...

Because you said "See and feel without a nervous system - a loose definition indeed." Seeing and feeling do not necessarily imply consciousness. They imply senses. So while those terms were a loose definition 'seeing' and 'feeling', they said nothing at all about consciousness.

Sorry, what do you mean? Edit: My point was simply that if a tree can sense then it may have a subset of what we consider consciousness in, for example, humans.

I think it is 'see' and 'feel' that are being used loosely here, not 'consciousness'.

From your link, plants seem to still fall under the loose definition I alluded to, and thus part of what might be subject to research on this topic.

Panpsychism certainly removes a threshold, but in doing so it eliminates the border around that aspect of life that people want to study and understand, which is commonly called 'consciousness'. Generally speaking it is sentience and awareness, the ability of an organism to have a sense of 'what it is like to be me'. Panpsychism and the loose definition of consciousness used by science and the public are not the same thing. Conflating the two only leads to confusion.

Not true. There were three people who did. The crazy part is that their names all start with the same letter.

I agree. DanMP is better informed on this topic than I am, yet even I can see the folly of his arguments. I can only conclude that he is digging in his heels in order to avoid acknowledging (God forbid!) he may have overemphasized the importance of this test, or that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of how science is practiced.

That looks pretty cool!!!

I don't mean to be picky, but you seem to be all over the place. When I asked you what the difference was earlier you said: Now that I've suggested an infinite number of different scenarios you claim it is because the moon has mass.. But an artificial satellite DOES have mass. So again, why choose the moon over the satellite?

So if we do the test on a small satellite, that should be followed by a test on a medium satellite? Then a large satellite? Then a satellite by a different manufacturer? Then a satellite launched next year instead of this year? There are an infinite number things that are different from what we are doing now. If you want someone to do something different you need to provide a reason for doing so that is more robust than "doing something that we don't."

Haha. Great point!

Different, but not special. What is it about the difference that makes the moon a better platform than a satellite?