>>11449892It would have qualia.
100% sure what matters is the abstract meaning of the information that is exchanged by the different parts making the pseudo-brain, no matter the medium, and no matter how cryptic the information is.
If you agree with that, although "information" is very broad, abstract and illdefined, you could wonder what is the minimum threshold for information exchanges (of any kind of complexity) to give rise to the tiniest bit of "consciousness".
If you think there is such a threshold, why ? The paradox of the heap would apply.
If you don't, then you'd end up believing that every "reach-connected" subset of the universe (as in, there are no couples of particules that can not interact with each other because of the distance between them) has its own, NOT consciousness, but a tiny, tiny little bit of "experience" of """consciousness""".
I emphasize the quotes because this would not mean things are conscious like you, me and animals are, that they'd have an inner world like do. What would differenciate our consciousness from other unliving things' "experience" would be the "oneness" of the information exchanges, their complexity, patterns, the overall relative order of them. You'd still be thousands of orders of magnitude more conscious while in deep sleep or in a coma than a beaker with a random reaction going on in it would ever be : it has information exchanges going on, but it's comparatively random, disorderly, it does not result in thoughts.
