In philosophy it literally means "subjective, qualitative experience". It's almost certain that all animals have it, but of course the qualities they experience will be different.
Almost certain that all animals have it? The conjecture that, say, a coral polyp or an earthworm (not to mention something like a trichoplax) might have a subjective qualitative experience of existence seems to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.
I don't know exactly how similar a brain has to be to a human brain for us to say with reasonable confidence the owner likely has such an experience but I'd be very surprised if included even half of all known animal species. It's possibly not even all (adult) mammals, and indeed not even all humans if you include infants and possibly those with severe brain damage etc.
The question of "where is the line" presumes there even is a line between matter ("objects") that expresses or does not express consciousness, which is also a big and unsubstantiated claim that requires proving. Occam's razor (i.e., our standard scientific apparatus of null vs alternative hypotheses) would seem to indicate it is appropriate to assume there is no difference in kind, only difference in degree, until there is evidence to prove otherwise.
What reason do you have to do so? What purpose would doing that serve?
As it stands you are just suggesting complicated, untestable theories. The point above is, that is ultimately pointless.
The simplest possible argument goes as follows: I am conscious, and I am made of matter. Everything else that is real is made of matter. There are other minds out there who also have this experience. With no further information, I must assume as the null hypothesis that everything in reality is conscious. An alternative hypothesis may be presented, but it would then need to be proven using reproducible studies and real evidence before we can assume the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis, per the consensus definition of formalized "science".
The rebuttal along epistemological lines goes as follows: you can know you are conscious, but you cannot necessarily know things that are witnessed through physical (limited, imperfect) sensory organs, so there is a wall beyond which we are forced only to postulate truths rather than conclusively prove them.
And the response to that is: if we are to progress in our analysis at all, we must postulate certain truths, and it is "best" to postulate only the least complex (in the Kolmogorov sense) assumptions given the data (Occam's Razor). "Best" is defined according to humanity's scientific principles.
I read it and I asked you a question, so don’t be a dick: answer it or don’t respond. Experience being “least complex” is in no way an objective truth especially if it’s fundamental. The only thing any person knows to be objectively true is that they have experience, we just assume other things don’t for some reason.
We have no reason not to assume that all reality in the universe has experience (consciousness). That's the whole point I've made there.
Your last sentence explains the second-to-last one: all we know is we have experience, therefore all we can assume about not-us is that it also has experience, because any other explanation would unduly add more complexity to the theory of consciousness in the universe. It's just Occam's razor.
I'm not sure what could be confusing you, I was careful to pick my words. I have noticed that you, specifically, tend to come in hot on ongoing conversations. I noticed it because I also have a tendency to do so and have been working to address it lately to varying success. But sometimes that causes some reading miscomprehensions because you're moving too fast.
If you try reading my comments again, thoroughly, you will find the following text:
> I am conscious, and I am made of matter. Everything else that is real is made of matter. There are other minds out there who also have this experience. With no further information, I must assume as the null hypothesis that everything in reality is conscious.
That was the point I was making. You re-iterated it in an attempt at some kind of rebuttal to something I didn't say.
I think that unless you have proof otherwise we should assume all organisms have awareness of their surroundings. Otherwise you’re just doing the same thing religious people did for centuries and treating humans as ultra special.
You can't prove that anyone other than yourself is conscious. It's assumed because other people and animals share similar biological organs and behavior.
