When the cells in our bodies fight off a virus, they dont act robotically, they have to THINK, lets go kick some virus ass.
When a tree absorbs moisture, its doesnt do it robotically, it has to THINK, time to suck up some moisture.
Do you think that every living thing actually has some level of thinking conciousness?
|
I think at a certain point of complexity, "thinking" is indistinguishable from "robotic response". As an example, I would present the game Factorio. When you first start out, you've got a very simple, basic factory that responds in a pretty simple cause-effect setting: Ore goes into smelters, plates pop out, plated go into assemblers, goods pop out, etc. Once you start getting farther and farther in the game, areas of your factory become, effectively, production "blocks" with rows of assemblers creating finished goods that are sent elsewhere in your factory. Same cause-effect, but it is much more complicated and relies on multiple factors always working out (presence of electricity, raw goods, space for finished goods, etc.). Finally, post-end-game (earlier, technically, but most people don't really go all out with the circuit system) you end up creating what is effectively a "brain", a central processing system made of simple arithmetic operations and binary yes/no deciders. Using this, you could have your factory manage itself effectively, shutting parts of itself down when certain resources are overproduced, and prioritizing resources for under-produced goods. I think of the factories almost as organic beings, evolving into more complex...complexes, and "eating" raw resources to survive and thrive.
I don't think the human body is particularly different. Go down to a small enough scale, and we're all governed by basic chemical and physical processes that can take place independently of the human body/brain. As these processes begin to overlap and regulate themselves, you end up with simple, reflexive responses. We call them "instincts". For example, an ion pump in a brain cell might respond to the electronic potential of the fluid inside the cell, shutting off when there is sufficient ions inside the cell to allow the cell to trigger a cascading release when that specific neuron is signaled (propagating the signal). Once the neuron lights up and the ions are released, the pump will start back up again and begin refilling the cell.
Now, since a neuron is a fairly simple binary decider (release ions/don't release ions based on external influence), I wouldn't say it is particularly complex, nor would I say that it "thinks" or is "conscious" in the generic definition of the word. Put a few trillion neurons together, and you've got yourself a proper thinker to put between your ears. To go back to the idea of instincts, I would call them rudimentary consciousness. You don't really need to be able to do calculus to realize, for example, that "fire bad". At the same time, it is much harder to prove consciousness in the way that we perceive it when the limits of your instincts are to "find light, grow that way". (That is an oversimplification, plants are capable of some surprisingly complicated maneuvers. For example, notice how there are a lot more wasps around after you mow the lawn? They're attracted to the "freshly mowed lawn" smell, which is grass's chemical response to being cut/eaten. The idea being, that caterpillars or other herbivore insects eat grass, grass responds with chemical trigger, wasps and other predatory insects come over looking for lunch of the caterpillar form, and that particular blade of grass stops being chewed on.)
|