Jessica Gonzalez7 said:
Isn't that just basic logic?
While it's true that not everything can be laid out in a perfectly linear, logical sequence—given the numerous paradoxes we encounter—it is entirely reasonable to assume there are consciousnesses for whom reality is simply broader and more deeply understood than it is for us.
We shouldn't limit the definition of consciousness strictly to human awareness. Animals, plants, and everything surrounding us possesses its own mode of existence, which is to say, its own form of consciousness. Every entity acts according to the information available to it within its specific parameters. Water boils when heated. A human dies when subjected to extreme heat. Everything operates with the same level of consciousness relative to its own inherent capabilities.
Isn't that just basic logic?
While it's true that not everything can be laid out in a perfectly linear, logical sequence—given the numerous paradoxes we encounter—it is entirely reasonable to assume there are consciousnesses for whom reality is simply broader and more deeply understood than it is for us.
We shouldn't limit the definition of consciousness strictly to human awareness. Animals, plants, and everything surrounding us possesses its own mode of existence, which is to say, its own form of consciousness. Every entity acts according to the information available to it within its specific parameters. Water boils when heated. A human dies when subjected to extreme heat. Everything operates with the same level of consciousness relative to its own inherent capabilities.
Unfortunately, no. Since we haven't even begun to grasp the true nature of consciousness, making any absolute assumptions about it is pure guesswork. For all we know, "consciousness" might be a closed loop reserved strictly for humans—thanks to our specific brain structure—or perhaps primates or marine mammals.
We need a rigorous definition of consciousness first, and frankly, finding one will take a long time.