[tehchromic]

Use of the word conscious here is interesting. Is there any doubt that fungi are conscious of what they are conscious of?

I think that we have to be careful. Speaking philosophically it's safe to say that we do not yet have a clear, definitive definition of "consciousness" in scientific terms such that we can safely assess what is or isn't conscious.

Some believe consciousness is what distinguishes humans from lower beasts. Others believe it is an emergent phenomenon of some higher order macroorganisms, dolphins but not cows, monkeys but not fish. Still others believe that plants, fungi, bacteria, and all living things display some level of consciousness.

And some weird folks believe consciousness is a property of the universe expressed in all things, which happens to manifest in forms that we understand and relate to in living organisms due to the inherent bias of observing through the lense of being a biological organism ourselves.

It appears difficult if not impossible to prove which of these definitions is correct!

What seems clear is that the idea of consciousness cuts to the very core of the modern scientific paradigm and world view, such that the inherent assumptions made in building our scientific realism allow us only a very narrow understanding of what is consciousness accompanied by a certainty that what we do understand must be all there is.

That's to say, if you've ever questioned the fundamental axioms of scientific truth you've inevitably bumped into the philosophical problem of consciousness relative to the institution of scientific realism.

So to say, when someone says "we now have proof that X may in fact be conscious!" the statement comes across to some ears as most definitely vague and exactingly inordinate!

[oceanplexian]

Maybe this is closer to spirituality than science, but I’ve been reading Eckhart Tolle and he explains in a few of his books that the whole idea of “I” or “My self” is an illusion that’s created by the ego. This is also the message from a lot of Eastern philosophy.

I would hazard to guess that individual consciousness doesn’t actually exist, so of course a tree can’t be individually conscious because neither can a human. We (both the tree and the human) are part of a collective “consciousness” that is life itself.

[plutonorm]

I object to being called weird. It's quite a logical position to hold, many modern philosophers hold a panpsychist or similar view.

[jonathankoren]

Yeah, but panpsychists don't have any mechanism for it. It's just, "Well, if there's an emergent phenomena, it must have emerged from some critical mass of something, therefore your table is conscious."

It's fine for magical world building, but it doesn't really make much sense, and when pressed on it, they just throw up their hands and cry "It's logical!" It's specious. It feels like Descartes and others trying to elevate the pineal gland to be mechacockpit for the soul, or Plato assuming that everything is a projection from some metaphysical form outside of reality.

It's fancy talk, that is pointed -- and sometimes proudly -- unfalsifiable.

[plutonorm]

It's literally the opposite of that. The criticism you are levelling is precisely what makes the idea of the strong emergence of consciousness such a joke.

Panpsychists say that consciousness always exists, all the way down, not that it emerges. It is a view born out of the rejection of the kind of emergence you are describing.

[jonathankoren]

Literally no panpsychist asserts that a proton has human, or even bacterium level consciousness.

[plutonorm]

Go do some reading and then come back with an informed opinion because you don't have the basics down.

[tehchromic]

Others feel that weird is the greatest compliment.

[mountainboy]

This goes to the age old debate between vitalists and materialists.

In other words, does conciousness/spirit precede and shape matter, or does matter precede and shape conciousness/spirit?

Modern/western science is pretty firmly entrenched in a materialist view. Although it seems more are questioning that these days.

Personally I think that the brain is probably closer to a radio than a CPU. In other words, it is the bridge that enables our ethereal spirit/conciousness to experience and interact with the material world.

Just as hackernews does not exist in my laptop, neither does my "self" exist in my brain. Rather my laptop and my brain are each providing a terminal to a remote realm.

No amount of examining and dissecting my computer will reveal the code that runs hackernews, youtube, google, etc. It would be foolish to suggest it.

Yet that is exactly what neurologists try to do... with predictably miserable results.