[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And I'm not sure that 99.999999999% of the universe cares a damn about whatever you think consciousness might be.

Most conscious entities care about their own survival, or some better version of themselves. Those who don't care would soon go extinct and their opinions won't matter anymore.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Like other mammals, homo sapiens is regarded by viruses, fungi and bacteria as nothing more than a vehicle and source of food.

From the perspective of our own cells and organelles, we are also  vehicle and source of food. And we depend on them for our own existence, at least for now.

I've addressed this issue in my other thread. I'm planning to make a video summarizing it.

[alancalverd]

Most conscious entities care about their own survival,

But as far as we know, conscious entities comprise less than 0.00000000001% of the mass of the universe, if that.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Most conscious entities care about their own survival,

But as far as we know, conscious entities comprise less than 0.00000000001% of the mass of the universe, if that.

How do you calculate that? If you drink 1 liter of water, how much of it will become part of you and be conscious?

[alancalverd]

You can estimate the mass of known conscious entities - it's not more than the total biomass of this planet, about 6 x 10¹¹ tonnes.

You can also estimate the mass of the observable universe, about 10⁵⁷ tonnes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can estimate the mass of known conscious entities - it's not more than the total biomass of this planet, about 6 x 10¹¹ tonnes.

You can also estimate the mass of the observable universe, about 10⁵⁷ tonnes.

Did you include human hairs and bones as biomass?
Do you include supercomputers and smart phones as part of human consciousness?

Unconscious entities don't care about anything. Conscious entities care about their existence.

[alancalverd]

1. Yes
2. No

as long as 10⁵⁷ >> 10¹¹ I think we can safely ignore consciousness as a significant element of the observable universe.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1. Yes
2. No

as long as 10⁵⁷ >> 10¹¹ I think we can safely ignore consciousness as a significant element of the observable universe.

You can ignore what's important for future conscious entities. But your view will be ignored by them when their time has come and yours has passed.

[alancalverd]

But their existence depends on our actions!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But their existence depends on our actions!

Some of our actions are necessary for their existence. Some others are detrimental for them. Some others don't really matter.
They will call those actions moral, immoral, and amoral actions, respectively.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1. Yes
2. No

as long as 1057 >> 1011 I think we can safely ignore consciousness as a significant element of the observable universe.

What's your reason for your answers?

No. We are not safe to ignore consciousness found in the observable universe.

[alancalverd]

Mathematics.

The development or extinction of consciousness (whatever that is) may matter to you, but not to the Crab Nebula. Most of the universe got on pretty well without it for 10 billion years, and is utterly unaware of it even now.

One of the first lessons you learn in science is that nature is wholly indifferent to what you, Pol Pot, or Mother Teresa thinks.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Mathematics.

The development or extinction of consciousness (whatever that is) may matter to you, but not to the Crab Nebula. Most of the universe got on pretty well without it for 10 billion years, and is utterly unaware of it even now.

One of the first lessons you learn in science is that nature is wholly indifferent to what you, Pol Pot, or Mother Teresa thinks.

What makes you think that hair and bones are part of consciousness while supercomputers and smart phones are not?

What about water that humans drink?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I summarized my thoughts on consciousness in another thread.

here it is.
Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.

[alancalverd]

What makes you think that hair and bones are part of consciousness while supercomputers and smart phones are not?

I make a point of never using words I don't understand. I have no idea what you mean by consciousness, which is why I said "whatever that is". If you want to make it "the essence of everything", by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to follow you down the path to insanity.

All I have done is to estimate the mass of living things,on the presumption that these are the things that care about their own  existence, and point out that the constitute a negligible and transient fraction of the observable universe. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What makes you think that hair and bones are part of consciousness while supercomputers and smart phones are not?

I make a point of never using words I don't understand. I have no idea what you mean by consciousness, which is why I said "whatever that is". If you want to make it "the essence of everything", by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to follow you down the path to insanity.

All I have done is to estimate the mass of living things,on the presumption that these are the things that care about their own  existence, and point out that the constitute a negligible and transient fraction of the observable universe. 

You are free to redefine words as you like. But if you intend to communicate them with someone else, you need to clarify what you mean when you are using those words. You can refer to your other posts using them, so someone else can make a mapping the relationships between your words and their own words to convey the same meaning.

In natural language processing algorithm, words are converted into vectors, and they are statistically related to common usage. That's why modern NLP models can easily translate sentences from one language to the others. But if you use those words inconsistently, even the best NLP models won't be able to help.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Politics of Consciousness | video lecture with Yuval Noah Harari

What is consciousness? Who has consciousness? And why is it so dangerous to confuse it with intelligence? How does our understanding of consciousness impact the ethical, political and legal debates about abortion, animal rights and the legal status of AI? In this video talk, Yuval Noah Harari unpacks these huge questions step by step, and offers tools for thinking about them clearly.

Basically, he equates consciousness with capability to suffer. Unfortunately, he doesn't elaborate further on what suffering is, and why it's not based on other types of feelings or thoughts.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

IMO, suffering is expectation of pain and difficulties or discomfort.
Some people like Buddha are capable of managing their own minds so they are less prone to sufferings. They would be less conscious, hence deserve less rights if we are willing to accept Harari's definition of consciousness.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

On the other hand, emotionally fragile people who are easily offended by slightest inconvenience would be prioritized over anyone else. They would become the utility monsters.
The society would be unsustainable because resources would be distributed ineffectively and wasteful.

[alancalverd]

Suffering is the state of being aware that things should be better than they are. Which is why legal cases are often settled on a basis of "pain and suffering" as two different entities.