"Levels of consciousness" don't necessarily imply death, in this sense, even crystals have consciousness of some sort, by a loose definition of what consciousness is.(By your implication of consciousness as reacting to surrounding environment.). Especially if You are a theist. "God" is derived from a pure solopsistic concept of an anthropomorphic projection. (Not to lessen the argument). Here, we need the help we need from God, in an effort to believe that He will react to us. It's no easy task, for us.
I think you misunderstood “my” implication. My argument is that entities are NOT conscious at all if they do not build an internal map of their situation. Such map building requires a perception and a mind; senses, memory, and association algorithms.
Only to some people’s version of “God”.
People anthropomorphize everything. People send their cats to psychiatrists. They have sympathy for trees and houses.
God actually has no choice but to “react to us”.
The issue is trying to get God to react in a positive way rather than negative. And that is why anthropomorphizing works well for the mind. If one accepts the ontology of God being an entity that is similar in many regards to a human, it is easier for the mind to deduce how to appeal for positive response. It isn’t a perfect ontology by a long shot, but then given a perfect ontology, those same people would be clueless as to how to use it. Anthropomorphism is a means of handling the situation through generalizations. The most brilliant scientific minds do that same thing because on some level it is always necessary due to the limitation of the mind compared to its challenge. One must construe “rules of thumb” else forever be trapped into indecision.
So Plank's constant is key to this field density,probably as the limit of the differentiation?
No. Plank was trying to explain that if the proposed quantum theory were true (which it isn’t) then there would have to be gaps in detectability of certain attributes. The Plank size is only relevant to QM proponents. In reality, there is no size limit to existence. A particle will naturally acquire a specific size determined by its situation. They didn’t understand that back at that time, so they proposed all kinds of “superstitions” to explain what they saw and surmised.
They very largely still go by superstition, for example, there is no “strong” or “weak” force at all. The “weak force” (a “fundamental” component of reality in the Standard Model for QM) is merely an aberrant effect that is quite explainable without superimposing a magical force. And the “strong force” is just silly. There is nothing even close to anything that could be called a “strong force” by their definition. They required an ontology of individual quantization of EM fields and due to that, they had to invent several types of forces to explain why their quantum entities behaved the way they observably seem to. But even after that, they still fell short and are still puzzled.
They formed a “remote recognition map” that wasn’t accurate, so they imaginatively superimposed extra entities that are invisible so as to comprehend the discrepancies, no differently than the other religions often do. As is often the case, they become “conscious” of what isn’t there. People are still people. The only thing that has changed is the ambiance of their fantasies.
Everyone has a vague concept of what consciousness is. But it is only through very exacting detail descriptions that one can fully understand of what it is made.
That is pretty much spot on. Many esoteric philosophies have discussed this idea in the past. Consciousness creates a generic image (map) of its environment while at the same time it also creates a generic image (map) of self. It then compares these generic images (maps) to the changing self and changing environment (respectively) and then manipulates one or both in order to benefit the self. There is always a lag between the generic image (map) of self and environment and the self and the environment. This lag produces a differential (a field) and thus produces motion. Or put another way, there is always a gap between what is known and what is observed and a conscious entity will always try to fill this gap but never actually achieve the goal. This force (hunger) drives the conscious entity to know more about self and the environment. It is also worth noting that the accuracy of the generic images is completely irrelevant (most of us have them completely wrong anyway).
It was James who said that and not me. The problem with his response is it conflates consciousness with behavior - and likely things like memory, intention - rather than simply some degree of awareness. What I see historically is that more and more things are considered alive and conscious, in the West that is, and in the history of science. Right now plants are being taken seriously as having some kind of consciousness and intelligence. And this is not merely in some fringe alternative portion of the scientific community. We have some deep prejudices, which also showed up in racism and sexism, and to some degree these are unraveling. Since we have no idea what the mechanism of being aware is, but can track behavior and couple this with our tendency to grant consciousness, emotions, intentions, intelligence much more easily to what is like us, humans have tended to assume that matter or things have no internal side. That there is no experiential component to most of the universe. But this is mere assumption.
In defining anything we define it by some underlying characteristics and by its function. E.g. Chair is a small platform elevated above the ground (characteristics) that humans use to support their weight when sitting on (function). We do not need to know the mechanisms of chair to define chair (just its characteristics and its function) as the mechanisms of chair are another field of study.
Consciousness is no different. Consciousness has the characteristic of awareness and it functions to create generic images (maps) of its environment (of which sensory perception, self, emotions, thoughts are in its environment). If something does not function then it does not exist (as a named object by humans). Naturally we would then need to define awareness/generic image (map) by its characteristics and by its function and this is where it gets complicated as we are reaching the limits of understanding. This unfortunately is the limit of language; as we define words by referring to other words that also require definitions (circular logic). We have schemas nested within schemas nested within schemas nested within schemas …
PS I am not sure why your name got stuck to the quote (must have been something I did but I don’t know what).
Or just by its characteristics. Unless we think everything has a function - and some do, though this would generally be considered a rather religious idea, I would think.
A chair is made with a purpose in mind by a sentient being. If everything is definable in this fashion it would seem we are working with some kind of intelligent design model.
If one thinks that any human/life form attribute has arisen via darwinist evolution, then it had no function (at first at least) but happened to be useful or at least not harmful). We did not develop ears because it would be good to hear things, some kind of protoear was the result of mutation and it happened to be good for the organism so it and the organism continued. I am probing now. I am not especially a darwinist - though I believe in evolution - but most people are, so I am trying to highlight the teleological nature of your position and contrast it with darwinism. If you are not darwinist, well, I’ll take another tack.
What is the function of extension?
What is the function of time?
If something is a facet of reality, it is and functions/that which happens necessarily incorporate it since it is a part of being.
Sorry, I am lost by your comments. Everything that is named by humans is functional as part of its definition (it is how language works). For example is we consider the noun “broken-television” then that noun functions as a television that is non operational. The verb walk has certain characteristics which define it and it functions to move a person from one position to another (walks characteristics differ from run but it has the same function). I think you are confusing a linguistic function with purposeful meaning. I do not see how religion came into this.
Walk: verb (used without object)
- to advance or travel on foot at a moderate speed or pace; proceed by steps; move by advancing the feet alternately so that there is always one foot on the ground in bipedal locomotion and two or more feet on the ground in quadrupedal locomotion.
Red = Function
Blue = Characteristics
So if we use the word consciousness then we must define it with a set of characteristics and a function. The vague concept of awareness is meaningless. I think James has made a damn good attempt at doing this (although not original like most things we humans do). I think he is clever for his choice of wording too (recognition = re-cognition)).
Wells, here is the crux of the argument in a nutshell. it depends on the meaning of cognition. Since You refer to the literal development through evolutionary changes, Yiu are being reductive. However, such logic invariably fails on that level, which the positivists are unwilling to admit. Cognition may entail a lot more facets than simply functional derivatives, they may have others. function is an idea thought up after the fact, mutation may just happen to be a haphazard mix. Which happen to coincide with some environmental changes. the environment may have changed on account of finding greener pastures. This so leans on the nature/nurture argument in defense of morphological changes. This debate had serious consequences that’s described in a Viennese biologist’s biography, about a frog which supposed to have evolved some anatomical parts on account of changes in environment. Utility, or function may had to do with the loss of the tail, with which we were equipped with in our early development. Why do some fish fly, why do some turtles stay on land while others need to be submerged in water? utility is not completely a sufficient explanation, it may be more a haphazard event of chance. Our positivist literal understanding of utility and function are hence, not results of reductive developments, but implied facts based on study of changes of morphology, with subsequent description. Positivism has developed as a consequence of legitimizing a uniform understanding, of support, which can not be literally described.
I am being linguistically functional … not pondering on the meaning of life or meaning of consciousness or the origins of such things.
Things (especially nouns) are defined by their characteristics and by their function. This is how language works. If we cannot do this then our language fails us.
Consciousness becomes aware of things and it functions to create internalised maps of its environment. Its environment includes things perceived by the senses, its concept of self, emotions, feelings, thoughts, memories, and even its own maps. When a new object(or changed object) appears to consciousness it compares its awareness to the existing maps and changes its behaviour/feelings/emotions and/or updates the map. If a thing does not do this then it cannot be called conscious.
granted linguistics has a function to present objects to consciousness, but the triad goes like this:
Linguistics>objects>consciousness, and here is the clincher, beneath the level of linguistics, then, there is no presentation. What of the contention, that it is like this:
Consciousness>objects<linguistics? this would devolve the object below the level of selective awareness? Here, a functional linguistics would become inadequate to explain it. The language would still explain the function of presentation by way of symbolic transference to meaning, but that’s all. It cannot go above or beneath the transference.
The object would and the objective would becom flat lined, one dimensional, and reductive.
Within an inductive language, a production of meaning would no find its place, or function, except if replaced by probable meaning and utility. the presentation would not guarantee an intended interpretation. Therefore function would become uncertain. You would not even need to delve into questions relating to ‘reality’.
They must be considered as one way containing two ways:
1,1) Linguistics => objects => consciousness,
1,2) Consciousness => objects => linguistics.
Both ways (1,1, and 1,2) of the one way (1) are necessary - for example: for language development and language acquisition, and also for consciousness development and consciousness acquisition.
Yep.
Is someone suggesting that language causes consciousness? 
No, not really. The question is, the function of language in determining reality. this was Wells’s proposition. And this simply can not be done, because of the very opposite fact, the limitations of the function of language to describe anything but the interpreted meaning upon the presentation of reality through language. This presentation will have no correlation between the objective of the presentation and the resulting object presented. ‘Object’ is used not necessarily in the material sense.
???
It was?
That isn’t what I got out of it. 
When you say “reality”, you are talking about objective existence, right?
That is not at all what I was suggesting.
Simply suggesting that language defines things in terms of its characteristics and its function. We define consciousness through language and so consciousness must have characteristics and a function. If consciousness did not have a function and did not have characteristics then we would not be talking about it (even if it still existed as a so called objective reality). It would be impossible to talk about it - but we may be able to experience it but that experience could not be communicated.
I agree with James in that consciousness itself creates a map of reality to the extent that it even creates a map of what it perceives itself to be. Since we are writing about consciousness then part of that map is created through, and with, written language. A different type of map would form if we were talking about it through oral language and a different map would form if we were contemplating consciousness through meditation. Either way, a map (generic image) is still formed.
So, in defining consciousness … as James suggests … it is remote re-cognition. Or taking in sense perceptions and comparing these sense perceptions to maps and then adjusting behaviours and/or maps in such a manner that benefits consciousness’ perception of self (which is also a map). Even the notion of self is remote to consciousness and must involve re-cognition.
Well, at least that is what I assume James is talking about… I probably have it all wrong.