Consciousness
Thoughts on consciousness and its physical origins.
If humans have consciousness, and humans are made entirely of matter (i.e., there is no metaphysical aspect, only "science" as it is understood), then all matter must be capable of consciousness.
If humans are capable of consciousness, but matter in general is not; then what is it that differentiates humans so fundamentally? We can agree that sustainment of human life and thought requires an extreme degree of complexity in physical reactions - but degree of complexity alone is not enough to generate an entirely unique property. In that case, all physical reaction should result in a "consciousness" phenomenon in proportion to their complexity.
You might also argue that "self-perception" is the differentiating factor. But again, on closer examination, this doesn't hold water.
Any physical definition of self-perception is just as applicable to an inanimate object as an animate one. An object can "see" itself in a mirror, because it can be impacted by the light which it reflected previously. It can "feel" itself if it can flex and make contact with itself. It can even "think" of itself, through natural, internal, equilibrium-seeking processes: what is the qualitative difference between the electrical reactions in a lightning storm and those in the human brain? Or even something as simple as a river directing water to the lowest point?
###You might say, awareness is the missing key. To truly be aware of oneself There is no real physical argument to be made for the unique presence of consciousness in humans. Even
Ultimately, the presence of consciousness in humans alone cannot be explained while holding to the assumption that life is nothing more than physical reaction.
Therefore, you must choose between the two. Either all physical interactions exhibit some degree of consciousness, or humans (and, you might argue, animals) are uniquely posessed by some metaphysical quality that results in the manifestation of consciousness. Something like "God," perhaps.
Personally, I lean toward the former.
After all, what is the difference between perception and interaction?
Does an apple falling from a tree not "perceive," in some fashion, the ground upon impact? Does it not "notice," and "react" by adjusting course? Accounting for the presence of this new force within the confines of its own physical limitations?
Can't we say the same about "awareness" and "self-awareness?"
