Math is Hard: I was inferring that just as the Universe is gooey, so can our definition of what consciousness means. Gooey, as I like to say, referring to how the more we learn, the more you take a look back and see that all the big, drawn lines are no longer that and the Universe appears to be one, big, malleable mass. And that I don't put my trust in anything but the observed so I'm not trying to push some agenda that there is a god/s, but that what makes us up is actions for which the Universe birthed.
It takes complex reactions to create complex objects, however you define complexity in this sense. I'm not arguing for or against a conscious Universe/Multiverse, but I don't think we can discard it either at this point. The only thing I'm unsure of is how unsure I am of things. To try to make a distinction between us and the Universe is just as right as my view of the Universe and humans being indistinguishable on a larger scale, imho. Just as you take a look at a cell from afar and you zoom in, you are able to distinguish parts of it, and what makes it up, and what makes that up, etc. That when you zoom out, you'll see that we're all a part of a functioning system.
And when you speak of Rude Goldberg machines, those are simple enough it's easier to make a distinction. But what happens when machines grow complex enough to appear conscious? We will really have to delve into the subject matter then to find more of a distinction.
If you ask me, distinctions are there if you see them, and they are not if you don't. No one vantage point is right if you assume our vantage points are of equal validity. Your fence is my arbitrary line. You can say that's your property and this is my own on the other side, or you can also view it as microscopically and see the line is just as gray and gooey as sculptor's clay. All is relative to the observer.
