Ask the same question about color or temperature. Atoms by themselves have no color, nor temperature, but macro scale objects do.

It makes no sense to say an atom has a little bit of temperature.

These are emergent properties that describe the interactions and interworkings of many many individual components.

It's not necessary that elementary particles have a "little bit" of consciousness. They also don't have any temperature, it not "a little" but undefined. It could be that you can only apply the concept of consciousness to sufficiently complex systems.

It reminds me of how some ancient Greeks felt there was a contradiction in 2 being large when compared to 1,but small when compared to 3. How can 2 possess the quality of smallness and largeness at the same time? Perhaps it has some smallness in it and also some largeness? Today we would say small and large are relative terms that apply to two things, it's a function that takes two inputs. They didn't have a solid grasp on concepts that exist in the relations between objects instead of them residing in the objects. I think today's consciousness debate is analogously misguided.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I didn't claim that atoms are conscious, nor did I claim or imply that the consciousness of a complex organism emerges from the consciousness of its sub-atomic components. If consciousness is gradual – and I believe it is – then it's possible that insects are not conscious, and simple consciousness only starts at the complexity of, e.g., a reptile's brain, or somewhere along the development of a fetus.

To be clear, when I say "closer to a sub-atomic particle's consciousness", I mean "not conscious at all". Hmm, I admit, that sentence could be misunderstood. Sorry, that was my fault.

> To be clear, when I say "closer to a sub-atomic particle's consciousness", I mean "not conscious at all".

How could that be what you meant? You laid out 2 options, and your corrected option 2 is the same as your option 1.

> How could that be what you meant? You laid out 2 options, and your corrected option 2 is the same as your option 1.

I don't get what you're saying. My "corrected" option 2 means that consciousness is a spectrum, that consciousness is not a binary property. A human is more conscious than a chicken, which is more conscious than an insect, which is more conscious than a bacterium, which is not conscious at all.

I don’t think the topic being discussed here is “consciousness”. Rather it is how similar an other organism seems to humans, from the point of view of a human.

The more human something looks, the more plausible it seems that the being may be conscious.

But this begs the question of what consciousness is, and is not a scientific approach.

You don't particularly give arguments for thinking that insects don't have consciousness though, your points can absolutely get reversed:

1) The step occured somewhere between sub-atomic particles and humans, so why not somewhere between sub-atomic particles and insects?

2) Consciousness is gradual, in which case I wouldn't be surprised if an insects consciousness is closer to a human's consciousness than to a sub-atomic particle's consciousness.

So we're back to the starting point of... nobody really has a clue what we're talking about :)