Re:Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think
by visarga on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @10:36AM
(#15294188)
Yes, you can draw a very clean line. It's the line of self-replication. Self-replicators have an internal goal - that is to maintain their existence by growing and replicating. The more advanced ones develop complex responses to changes in their environments. Humans are just the apex of this process. A toaster or a thermostat don't self reproduce, so they have no goals. Having no goals, means no consciousness, because goals are shaping the development of consciousness.
Re:Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think
by mannykannot on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @11:40AM
(#15294979)
> Self-replicators have an internal goal.
You are taking the teleological analogy literally again. It was Darwin's biggest insight that this is precisely not how evolution works.
Adding the word 'internal' doesn't help either. You could just as well say that a thermostat has an internal goal of staying warm.
This is moot anyway. Like Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty, you have crafted a definition of consciousness that suits you perfectly, but which doesn't match what everyone else means.
Re:Consciousness Goes Deeper Than We Think
by bbctol on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @12:09PM
(#15295358)
Fire self-replicates. It maintains its existence by consuming fuel and spreading itself. It's not as skilled at this as a human, but neither's a worm. What about an individual bacterium? Does it have a goal? Are they conscious in a way a humble virus is not?
The rest of this discussion is hard to follow because it has apparently been edited, but you can't draw a line between applying your argument to animate things, but not inanimate ones, simply by choosing one word over another.