Gertie wrote:I agree with this generally but wonder about the gradations between boundaries. My previous examples were not ideal. At the point of Earth's abiogenesis, consider the difference between the first life form as per today's definition and its "peer" chemicals. Then there's the difference between microbes with a nucleus and those without. There have been some studies where, logically enough, chemical structures are being found in microbes that are seemingly performing the same function as a nervous system. We are talking about a level of "consciousness" that is dwarfed by our deep sleep.
Yeah the gradations between boundaries are interesting in themselves. One thing does stick out, that complexity (rather than eg size) seems key to at least more complex subjective states, and might be a necessary condition. So a solid marble StatueGreta (which there are many I'm sure) looks less likely to be conscious than a movin and a-groovin RobotGreta.
Exactly. Of course, compared with our mighty [sic] human consciousness the, well, reactivity of StatueMe and RoboMe is doodly squat.
Gertie wrote:Then there's philosophers' favourite leap of sentience - to us eusocial post-apes.
You might enjoy Churchland's take on this, here's a brief summary in a talk she gave
Ta, but I don't feel she explained it, though. When she spoke about the so-called mammalian innovation of parental care I immediately thought of mother crocs carrying their young gently in their mouths, or bird parents working feverishly to feed their young, never mind the struggles of penguin parents.
You are surely right about complexity, at least to some extent. Integration is another key aspect of life/consciousness. So a jungle may be much more complex than a single ape, yet is (apparently?) less sentient, with its information less densely packed and less integrated.
-- Updated 19 Jul 2017, 00:59 to add the following --
Belindi wrote:Greta wrote:
Still, in time every species becomes extinct and will, hopefully, be replaced.
I detect the idea that nature is value in its own right, and not only as support system for humans. I want to join that club! Some atheists are better at God than traditional believers.
Emotionally, yes, I think nature has value in its own right. Realistically, however, I see most of nature as ending up acting as likely resources for whatever humankind and its products manage to cook up.
As things stand, due to the heating sun, even without an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, in a matter of millions of years the Earth's surface will be uninhabitable. This is a short time in the Earth's history. Unless humans/cyborgs/AI manage to do something clever in the future, the story of life on Earth ends there.
-- Updated 19 Jul 2017, 01:07 to add the following --
UniversalAlien wrote:Woodart wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
I hope we will be better, but I am not sure we will be better. Technology is a double edge sword. In some ways it takes us away from who we are - blinds us. We are moving forward - I am not always sure where we are moving to.
Better than what? - Define better.
Ways in which we could be improved upon:
- more equitable, fair and compassionate
- more empathetic towards other life forms
- more intelligent, able to use reason to dismiss unsubstantiated polemic and propaganda
- less subject to inappropriate anxiety / fight-or-flight
- more physically durable
- more sustainability, and so on.
There must be hundreds of ways we humans could be improved upon - or more!