[extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.

[gts]

  "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>

> if the two phenomena were 100% correlated, one would have to
> admit that a bacterium was a tiny bit conscious.

I think it would make more sense to say the bacterium is a tiny bit  
"aware," and reserve the word "consciousness" to mean something like  
"awareness of one's awareness". Consciousness probably requires an  
advanced nervous system.

Humans seem conscious, but not bacteria and probably not even much more  
complex organisms like insects.

On a slightly different subject, you mentioned you're a biologist.  
Eventually someone is going to use nanotechnology or genetic engineering,  
or a combination of both, to build an "artificial" bacterium functionally  
identical in every respect to a "real" bacterium, perhaps even with the  
ability to replicate and even mutate (gasp).  Will that artificial  
bacterium be "alive" in your opinion?

I would answer yes. The bacterium is not artificial -- the definition of  
life is artificial. The entire world is alive, or dead, whichever word you  
prefer.  Personally I'm strongly biased toward the former. :)

Is this consistent with your idea of pan-vitalism as the source of what we  
normally mean by biological life? If so then we may be talking about the  
same thing.

-gts