I am still using your definition. Agreeing to use it and agreeing that it makes sense are two different things. My definition involved the active processing of feedback from the brain - and I’m not talking about that at all here.
Sorry, when you count the number of people watching a movie, you don’t count the screen. I do get the all rocks have it part. That was not my point. If you measure energy usage for a rock, what part of it is involved in C? You get energy in from the sun and the environment and whatever radioactive materials are decaying, and you have energy out in the form of heat and reflected light. If you could measure the energy profiles of a C rock and a non-C rock (just assume one existed) how would they differ? If there isn’t any energy usage, nothing is happening.
It’s the same reason there are no ghosts. It’s not the dying part, it is the saying boo part with no energy transfer. If you claim energy comes from vibrations or something, you need to show that, or show how it could be measured.
How is the universe with C, in your definition, measurably different from a universe without C? If you ask 1,000 people if rocks are C, 999 will say no. if you asked if people were C, all would say yes. How would you demonstrate them wrong, besides through assertion?
Well, there’s got to be a weak part, hasn’t it? I agree the energy part is the one that sounds weakest, and since I’m no physician, I can’t prove you wrong. It could be that since the brain does all the signal processing, the c. doesn’t really need to spend any energy to receive it, and if there’s no meaningful signals to interpret, there isn’t any energy spent anyway, or one could perhaps argue that if every atom was c., the energy they used wasn’t measurable because they all used the same amount, sort of like if all of earth was as high as MT Everest, it wouldn’t be high at all. Not the most plausible ideas, I agree, but given the singular nature of experience (You either experience something or you don’t, you can’t be half capable of experience.), I find your emergent c. even harder to swallow. I know, I know, energy preservation is the last law of nature to mess with, but I’m not, I’m only suggesting that there’s… uhm… something we’re missing here.
Might be a desperate refuge for an insane theory, but then, explain your emergence.
Or, perhaps that entire reply was wasted. I never really claimed rocks have an active c., I claimed they have potential for c., that they are awake in the sense they are ready to receive meaningful input at any moment. I might have used the word c., but replace it with potential-for-consciousness, and my point stands. That would result in the same energy usage you’d expect with your theory.
I do get the all rocks have it part. That was not my point. If you measure energy usage for a rock, what part of it is involved in C? You get energy in from the sun and the environment and whatever radioactive materials are decaying, and you have energy out in the form of heat and reflected light. If you could measure the energy profiles of a C rock and a non-C rock (just assume one existed) how would they differ? If there isn’t any energy usage, nothing is happening.