consciousness_without_a_brain andru235 is the rabbit brain sufficient for consciousness? were dinosaurs conscious? archosaurs? synapsid reptiles? fish? insects? there are a host of intermediary creatures that have semi-brains. evolution does not create from nothing. even the most radical mutations are an evolution of something previous. thus, if consciousness is not had in trilobites, then consciousness can only be a distant permutation of something else that *was* had in trilobites. if consciousness showed up out of nowhere at a certain point in brain development (which was long, and gradual), then any other aspects of life could have shown up out of nowhere just the same. can't have it both ways! even to say that consciousness evolved bit by bit still requires a base in something else. if there is a step from zero to nothing, then evolution is no longer a viable explanation for things. see previous paragraph! mutations can be enormous, and can totally obscure the predecessor trait. but the predecessor trait was still there! why would consciousness be any different? again, if consciousness doesn't have a predecessor trait, then how can we be so sure that other things *do*? maybe it went from trilobites to pterodactyls (i don't really think that). either way, where did the primordial soup get whatever it was that later became waking life? everything about the human experience has parallels in even the most itsy-bitsy forms of life: consumption. reproduction. periods of growth. periods of decay. habitat preferences. movement. death. stagnance. regeneration. 'society'. and the relevant organs vary enormously. but suddenly we want to say that we have consciousness because of a brain, and they don't. so bacteria don't have digestion because they don't have stomachs? of course they have digestion. it simply works in a totally different manner. but they take in 'food', extract nutrients from it, and excrete the rest as waste. digestion. all known living things have some sort of cordination mechanism, even if that is only the DNA itself. but if sentience and/or consciousness exist there, it won't be any more similar to our mode of consciousness than a comparison of physique. expecting consciousness to resemble what we know it as is inane (no one here has specifically claimed that it would). "but how could something be conscious if it doesn't have a brain?" let's look at the question via analogy. "how could something move around if it doesn't have legs?" "how could something detect light [phototropes such as plants] if it doesn't have eyes, or skin [to FEEL warmth]" "how could something eat if it doesn't have a mouth? how could it acquire nutrients if it doesn't eat?" "how could something breathe if it doesn't have lungs [plants]?" "how could something sexually reproduce if it doesn't have a penis / vagina?" etc. of course, the answers to these are all quite obvious to us. yet many would balk at the base question. 050904 ... stork daddy of course other forms of life have some capabilities that probably played a role in the development of consciousness. it's about emergent complexity. as different organisms came by mutation after mutation to a system that tried to map out the world, it probably was likely that eventually that map would grow to include nuanced representations of themselves...which is one of the traits we largely associate with consciousness (like some chimps recognizing themselves in a mirror). consciousness, however, remains hard to understand since we can't really even prove that another person is conscious except by observing things we largely associate with consciousness in ourselves. the step between the objective and subjective aspects of consciousness is a hard one to make, but that does not mean it can't be made. many of the advances of science would have seemed beyond belief to humans as little as 40 years ago. either way, i don't think the argument that you need a brain for consciousness in any way discounts that earlier organisms in many ways contained the building blocks for such a tool as we possess. however, that doesn't mean that our consciousness isn't concentrated in a mind. after all, without dna there is no brain. but it would be a mistake to claim that therefore dna is all conscious. because the configurations dna is capable of and dna itself are not the same thing. anymore than a lego block is the same thing as a lego castle. 050904 ... REAListic optimIST jellyfish have no central nervous system at all. no brain, nerves, spinal cord, etc. it is basically sentient jelly. but i'm sure there's no consciousness, cuz they are inferior. and consciousness means superiority. yup. :nods: 050904 ... stork daddy something can be different without being better. but it can also be more fitted to certain tasks. whether that makes it better, however, is pretty subjective. 050904 what's it to you? who go blather from