>>9995846Here’s an interesting thought experiment. Let’s say you define “I” as you, the person who is experiencing things from your point of view. Now, let’s say “he” is some other person having different experiences from their point of view. You talk to this person and they relate some story to you. You experience this story i.e., you experience your own, indirect qualia of their story. These people are said to have different “consciousnesses”, right?
But now what if I define and “I_1”, which is the part of your brain that experiences vision, and an “I_2”, which is the part of your brain which experiences sound. These parts of the brain relate their “stories”, i.e. information to each other or to some third part of the brain, which means these each have their own “consciousnesses”, just as the different people telling stories to each other, right? You can repeat this to increasingly smaller parts of the brain telling each other stories, each having their own qualia, down to individual particles.
If you disagree with this, you’ll have to come up with some reason why we should define “consciousness” at the level of whole brains and not less and not more.