[FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

[steve smith]

Nick -
> I must say, I am grateful and pleased by all these testimonials and I 
> am beginning to sense method in my madness.
I'm glad you were willing able to wade through my gallop of 
observations/reflections/experiences with these two highly central 
creatures in my household.
> I notice you are much vaguer about Cyd than you are about Hank.
Very much so, as I experience with many cats, she does not reach as far 
into human psyche/nature to meet me as most dogs (Hank in particular) does.
>    So, in your assertion that Cyd is both conscious and self 
> conscious, I am inclined to ask for more details.   So the method goes 
> something like this
>
> We statt with the intouition that because Cyd does X,  Cyd is conscious.

I think you know from my pan-consciousness self-diagnosis that all of 
the things I am inclined to report about Cyd also applies to the 
hummingbirds, the lizards she stalks, and the fish Hank barks at.

Cyd has a very highly adaptive sensorimotor system which not only allows 
her to be good at stalking and catching lizards but also at begging her 
people to let her out to do so, or to give her a helping of "second 
dinners" like the hobbit she channels.   She observes, considers, acts, 
observes the consequences of her acts (the book falling from the top of 
the bookcase when she traverses it too rambunctioiusly, the way Mary 
jumps up and lets her out when she hits the right note of plaintive 
meow, the way the lizard freezes when it senses her).   This is an 
overwhelming indication of consciousness in my apprehension of the world.

We were implying that an animal's "Love" or "loving relationship with" a 
human familiar had something to do with consciousness.   I think that is 
a red-herring,   I don't think the lizards love Mary when she frees them 
from Cyd's jaws, but I do think they are acutely conscious.

>   From our prior  usage of the term, we know that if Cyd is conscious, 
> he will do things A, B, C, D, ....N with greater frequency than 
> otherwise. We check t o  see if this is true. Does Sbe?  Ifso, we now 
> add Cyd to the list  of conscious beings.   Now we check to see if 
> other conscious beings do X with greater frequency than non conscious 
> ones.  If so, we have added to the list of things that conscious 
> beings do.

See above...  A==sense, B==process, C==respond.    I don't know that A, 
B, C singularly without both of the others even makes sense.

The fish in the pond are almost continuously in some level of motion, 
they appear to be sensing with their photon and olfactory and 
vibration/pressure-wave sensors.   They respond to signals (shadow of 
human or dog looming over pond, insect landing on the surface of the 
pond, bit of high-nutrient food sinking in the pond) by bolting or 
gulping or seeking more input (curiosity). While a lot of their 
processing may be prewired/instinctive, I do believe that part of their 
processing is in support of "learning".    The dragonflies who like the 
high-ground of the tips of everything they can alight on seem yet more 
automatic/instinctual yet they appear (because I project?) to learn... 
they appear to become more and more tolerant of my approaching them the 
more I do it?  They likely recognize that despite the appeal of the tip 
of my car antennae, the tips of the cat-tails in the pond seem to be 
more appealing given the likely food-flux they can spy and grab from 
that vantage (but this is a just-so projection since I'm not a very 
disciplined naturalist, I really have nothing but anecdotal observations).

So perhaps D might be "learn"...

Which takes me to the trees and bushes I feel a strong 
affinity/familiarity with.   Do they A, B, C (and even D?).  I say yes.  
They don't have lenses over their photo-receptors, but since their 
primary/singular energy gathering activity is photonic/light, they 
clearly sense light.   They also seem to be able to extend root growth 
toward water and nutrients, or along same said nutrients...  this 
represents A and C as does growth "reaching" growth out from under the 
shade to gather more light? What about B?   B would seem to be entirely 
pre-wired processing, not adaptive at the scale of the individual 
single-lifetime organism?   Which spills over to "learning" (D) which 
maybe isn't happening at the scale of the individual... does a branch or 
root keep "reaching" even if it gets stymied over and over?  I'm not 
sure.  So if B and even D are required for "consciousness" then perhaps 
it is only a population of such organisms and the germline phenotypic 
expression which we must acknowledge some level of "proto-consciousness" 
to?

To go on down the line of lower-and lower complexity entities or systems 
i'd have to grasp further and seek the existing guidance of others in 
the pan-consciousness world who have worked through this in their own ways.

Bottom line, is that the "bottom line" of consciousness feels very hard 
for me to even begin to want to draw between Hank and Cyd or where it 
excludes Lizzy or Fishy or DraggyFly or any and all of the 
yet-less-familiar creatures they stalk and eat. Interesting that all of 
these are predators, no?

Yet another free-associateve gallop?