So, I looked up David Chalmers … Yeh, I know: I shouldn’t have HAD to look up David Chalmers. Here from Philosophy Index
A potential problem with this speculation, which Chalmers acknowledges, is that it may imply the consciousness of things that we would not normally consider to have consciousness at all. For instance, Chalmers wonders if this means that a thermostat may have some experiential properties, even if they are especially dull. He does not commit to the notion that they do, but the possibility remains in the more speculative area of his thought.
This is one of those “TED” insights, to which the only rational response is, “Duh!” Why exactly is that a problem? What exactly would it have meant to say that “humans are conscious” if it were not possible to discover that (1) things other than humans are conscious and/or that humans are not, in fact, conscious. Either we have a criterion for consciousness or we don’t; once we have a criterion, we either apply it rigorously or … we are dishonest. It’s really quite simple, actually.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] BBC News - Ant colony 'personalities' shaped by environment
Quick, somebody call David Chalmers!
On Aug 15, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Eric Charles wrote: