Not sure if you know that what you’re describing has a name it’s called Panpsychism and it is gaining some popularity but that’s not because there’s any reason to believe in it or any evidence, it’s a fanciful idea about the universe that doesn’t really help or connect anything. IE: panpsychism doesn’t make for a better explanation for anything than the idea that you are just a singular consciousness living in it’s most probable state to be able to observe or experience anything.
I’m not shooting it down, it’s one of those things we just will never know, but that’s a pretty huge list of things and possibilities so I just don’t know if it’s more or less useful than any other philosophical view.
I don’t think I’m talking about panpsychism. To me, that’s just giving up and hand wavey. I’m much more interested in trying to come up with a more concrete, empirical definition. I think questions like “Well, why aren’t plants conscious” or “Why isn’t an LLM conscious” are good ways to explore the limits of any particular definition and find things it fails to explain properly.
I don’t think a rock or electron could be considered conscious, for example. Neither has an internal model of the world in any way.
Not sure if you know that what you’re describing has a name it’s called Panpsychism and it is gaining some popularity but that’s not because there’s any reason to believe in it or any evidence, it’s a fanciful idea about the universe that doesn’t really help or connect anything. IE: panpsychism doesn’t make for a better explanation for anything than the idea that you are just a singular consciousness living in it’s most probable state to be able to observe or experience anything.
I’m not shooting it down, it’s one of those things we just will never know, but that’s a pretty huge list of things and possibilities so I just don’t know if it’s more or less useful than any other philosophical view.
I don’t think I’m talking about panpsychism. To me, that’s just giving up and hand wavey. I’m much more interested in trying to come up with a more concrete, empirical definition. I think questions like “Well, why aren’t plants conscious” or “Why isn’t an LLM conscious” are good ways to explore the limits of any particular definition and find things it fails to explain properly.
I don’t think a rock or electron could be considered conscious, for example. Neither has an internal model of the world in any way.