Yes, indeed. And all of that means that the meanings — however approximate or vague — we assign to words need to be agreed, if the words are to achieve what you describe: communication.
1 Like
N.B. I’m only enjoying the playful aspect of these words, not criticising or trivialising them.
A lot of years ago, when “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance” was published, Pirsig astonished me with some of his differing perspectives. For instance, saying “B values precondition A” instead of “A causes B”.
I think the same thing could be applied here, couldn’t it? Perspective is perhaps the most powerful mental tool I have ever come across. The more different views we have, the more different ways of viewing the same thing, the wider (and deeper?) our overall view, and maybe the understanding that emerges from it.
The key realisation, for me, is when an unlikely-sounding view turns out to be plausible, and valid in that sense. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t true in any particular instance, but only that, in general, it could offer a valid explanation.
I don’t really know what you mean but I’m intrigued.
Objects are in part conscious, but not in full. It can be said objects are dormant-consciousness or post-conscious-waste.
It is tricky isn’t it? 
I would say that sensing comes with a package, and that package is reaction. Now a reaction always goes two ways. A boulder is already too complex to be the best example I could use, and gravity is hard to compare to a boulder. Bear with me. What I mean is that two particles typically interact with each other, meaning they both react to something, that something being each other. Elementarily speaking, I think any phenomena, starting with gravity, is a result of this kind of micro interactions happening many many times. If we were to have a micro example of a particle or small enough thing that remains completely unphased despite another thing reacting to it, then my idea would be under serious jeopardy. But I can’t imagine that somehow.
So if we suppose that sensing comes with a reaction, then a reaction is indicative that the object of interest in sensing (meaning it takes in data about the world somehow). And that is what I would call consciousness at a baseline. Being able to take in data about reality, which I would argue everything does to some extent.
It’s easy for anyone to think that this is removed from consciousness because it should appeal to something like self-awareness, but in my view self-awareness is just an extremely more complex version of what I just described above.
If I had to summarize: Things experience exactly what is happening to them. Nothing more. Nothing less. So who knows what a rock feels like? But under this view, surely it feels something. And maybe that’s all consciousness is.
What would be your approach?
WOW, this is actually an interesting way to look at it… It makes me feel things have already a pre-determined way in which they will react if the right conditions show up. So the causal factor isn’t so much what is determining its impact, but rather the consequence was always waiting for the right context kinda thing…
Isn’t it fascinating? 