The hardest thing to do is convince someone you're not conscious. People see consciousness everywhere. They apply it to wind and rain. Mountains and rodents. We can personify anything including the universe and god and gods and vegetables. We tell stories of eggs that fall off of castles and bunnies that have tea parties. Everything is a metaphor for ourselves and we are everyone.

This is partly because humans aren't the only things that are conscious. That being said I also do not believe that rocks are conscious. The jury is out on plants and fungi which are mysteriously intelligent. I believe that consciousness exists on a spectrum but only after a few criteria are met. In order to be conscious one must be living. There has to be something more than mere mineral.

Maybe being in nature is soothing because it allows you to change the state of the consciousness that you are in. You can go to the desert to be truly alone. Alone with your thoughts. Alone but not alone in your environment. Out there somewhere there are creatures.

You can go to the forest and surround yourself with ancient trees and listen to the wind. I'd believe trees are conscious before I believed the wind is conscious.

I am not sure where the absolute line is for myself in regards to consciousness. I am not sure there needs to be a clear demarcation when it comes to consciousness. I do not think that people require a clearly formed understanding of consciousness to have empathy for other things, including plants and animals, and even inanimate things such as wind or mountains. Personifying things around us is very natural. When we are born it is very important that a child starts creating mental models of the people around them. By creating models the baby can start to predict what their parents might do and try to understand how to communicate with them. By modeling the environment and generating the concept of agency a baby can start to predict the interactions between agents and objects. A baby immediately starts to differentiate between the significant agents around them and the relatively predictable objects such as tables and binkys.

Agents are party identified by their ability to create change either in their physical location or by changing the physical location of something else. When a person picks up a glass of water they are changing the physical location of the glass and the water and now can be identified as an agent. A mover of things. An actor. Agents act upon other things and cause change to occur. The day that the glass picks up the person then we might call the glass an agent and suspect that it is conscious.

A trait that should be looked for when determining if an entity is conscious or not is to ask, "is the entity capable of agency?". Can it make alterations to its environment? Nearly all animals are agents in that they act upon the world and cause change. The wind does this so then why wouldn't a gust of wind be considered an agent?

Maybe agency is not enough to call something conscious? Maybe it is and maybe by a very loose definition, the wind could be considered an agent in a non-personified way. Maybe the only concepts we have about agency come from a personal and human perspective. If so then the only model we have of agency is of humans, first by observing parents and then by observing the self. We then apply this concept to other things even if it doesn't apply or is only slightly accurate.

Maybe the wind isn't an agent and it is certainly not conscious because my concept of consciousness is rooted in the belief that consciousness emerges from organized biological material such as neurons, muscles, blood, and hormones. Maybe neurons are the most important element in the formation of consciousness but I'm not sure that that is the case.

Maybe each cell is conscious and with complex networks of communication among cells, consciousness is at the apex of that increase in complexity. As an organism evolves toward more complex forms of assembly and more specialization and diversification of cell types along with the bilingual nature that must occur when cells communicate with necessary bacteria and other microbiomes.

In fact, there are more bacterial cells in your body than human cells. There are roughly 40 trillion bacterial cells in your body and only 30 trillion human cells."
-https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/gut-microbiome-and-health

Maybe the communication network of biological structures is necessary for consciousness. It is the unintended output of trillions of cells and trillions of bacteria trying to communicate with each other. In order to maintain the megastructure that is the human body creates.

Maybe the difference in humans is that the cells and bacteria in humans have a far more efficient way of communicating than other creatures. Encoded in our DNA and in the DNA of the bacteria there exists a unique instruction or schematic that fundamentally alters the megastructure and allows for an ultra-efficient communication system. One that is so efficient that it produces more than required to survive. Maybe the extra energy that is conserved from this efficiency can be utilized to improve the structure. It can be diverted to the brain and to creating systems that lead to successful gene transfer and multiplication.

Is it the cell's job to multiply? Is the whole system a mechanism of experimentation? Is resource allocation something that can be applied to the body? Or is it just a metaphor taken from the financial world?

Are bacteria small enough that they perceive cells and other microscopic biological structures in an unrelatable way?

Or is consciousness just an epiphenomenon? Just a ghost in the machine? An inert, neutral, unaffecting, wisp of entropy? The waste product of an overactive mind.

Of course, it is another example of the personification of entities that I relate the biological structures to the architectural and electrical systems I see in my life. The macro-environment that I occupy is a system that I have an elaborate model that is generalizable to other systems. I have a more or less organized set of beliefs about what a social system looks like so I can apply those interactions to the complex interactions occurring inside of the body. The idea that it is social is one of personification. Another act of projecting my own perspective onto something else.

While cells are molecular machines and do use molecules to communicate there is no evidence that they communicate in a similar way to what humans do. Proteins do not have mouths, lungs, or lips to make sounds and they do not have legs or arms to gesticulate their thoughts.

The cause and effects chains are highly complex in biological structures.

But what about plants?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvBlSFVmoaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpwW9Lw2Ku4

Plants have very similar cellular structures to humans. The structures of plants are also complex and even if there are no neurons in plants there are definitely communication systems.

Is consciousness a form of communication? If it is then it isn't necessary to have neurons to communicate and therefore it isn't necessary for consciousness. But is it sufficient to have consciousness?

Is all communication a form of consciousness?

What is communication? Communication is the output of information that is then interpreted and comprehended by an input location. Things that communicate are required to be able to take in information and to output information.

If consciousness requires communication then that would mean that the wind is not conscious because any message interpreted by a human would never be falsifiable. There is no way to prove that the output information was comprehended accurately. This is why God does not exist as anyone claiming to be in communication with God can not be falsified. It may be true but by that standard, anything may be true. If the goal is to arrive at the truth then one must be able to rule out impossibilities.

So...

How would a person convince another person they were not conscious? Other than passing out.

Two men enter a room and sit down opposite to each other. The room is well lit but not too bright. There is a table in between the men and there is a small spread of cheese snacks. Each man has their own water bottle and one man's job is to convince the other man that they are not conscious.

The second the other man starts to talk the first man will automatically assume they are conscious. The second the other man reaches for food the first man will assume he is conscious. He will assume that the similarity in physical appearance would necessitate a similarity in mental capacities. As they are both human the first man will project his humanity onto the second man who is not doing a good job of convincing the first man that he is not conscious.

I suppose the second man could never communicate with the first man. Even if the first man yells at him. By never acknowledging them and not moving at all then the person would have little to base their assumptions about the man. At some point, a real human would become fatigued with time and at some point would falter which would give away information to the first man who would start to assume the second man is in fact a person.

This dumb scenario illustrates how agency is connected to consciousness. Out notion that consciousness exists is linked to the ability to act.

If this is true then a brain in a vat can not be conscious. I am not sure this is true. Is a brain in a vat able to make changes to its own brain? Can thoughts cause a change in neural structures? If so then a brain is capable of engaging in the only actions it can. Thought. If it can think about its own existence in an accurate enough way then maybe it can adapt to its surroundings. If a scientist were to measure the brain every day and track its changes and determine that the changes were not random but were in some way positively adaptative then the scientist could say that the brain in the vat is potentially conscious. Because it cannot communicate to the outside world it can not be fully determined whether it was conscious or not.

I think that for there to be certainty regarding the assignment of consciousness to an entity the entity has to be able to communicate with the outside world. This may be false but I'm not sure how else one would ascribe consciousness to something else.

One of the primary ways that consciousness is accepted is by the simple declaration of its existence from an individual. People say they are conscious but is that evidence? I am not sure it is. If just exclaiming things was proof then the justice system would be very easy to administrate.

How would I prove that you were conscious? How would you prove you were conscious?

Do we know of consciousness only by appealing to the similarities in descriptions of subjective experiences? As in it is only through communicating concepts that are comprehended by others does one identify the nature of consciousness. Therefore consciousness only exists with some form of communication. Whether it is internal communication or external communication there has to be some form of information transfer in order to assign consciousness.

This means that the brain in the vat may be conscious as it is possible to be internally communicative and not externally but it isn't possible to communicate your own internal experiences without externally communicating. The brain in the vat needs to come up with a way to project thoughts outward.

What about the role of intention in consciousness? Do we assume we are conscious because we have intentions that we work toward making happen? Maybe we misattribute success to our intentions when it is actually a coincidence and we are not in control of ourselves at all and any success is just a necessary outcome of determined pre-causes.

I would imagine that most people do not go around contemplating the nature of consciousness and this article would be of no value to them. Its value is not important anyway as this article is an exercise in thinking about a topic.