The idea that all things are conscious is gaining academic credibility

I thought Quartz did better articles.<p>&gt;&gt; It’s very hard to get consciousness out of non-consciousness,” says Chalmers. “Physics is just structure. It can explain biology, but there’s a gap: Consciousness.”<p>It’s completely and utterly unproductive to discuss a phenomenon that no one has a good definition. When the problem statement is vague, how can you engage in a scientific endeavor?<p>This whole article sounds like I took a trip down to the nearby Psychic reader.

Wow... I had this same thought... While stoned and drunk out of my mind in Amsterdam...<p>It all boils down to information, information storage, and information processing. Draw a closed surface around any region of space. Information enters the bounded region in the form of light, fields, pressure waves, particles, potentials, etc... This information bounces around a bit, interacts with the matter and stored information within, and eventually, some information leaves.<p>Happens with empty space, a rock, a person, anything. Who is to say that this process has any more meaning when a brain is involved...