Concerning my recent post about what it's theoretically like to be a smoke detector, Greensmile says, "I am having trouble with some of the statements in your post. While the mechanisms that underlie consciousness may indeed be as primitive as sensors, photodiode arrays and the 'register' that changes state when the sensor is affected by stimuli [memory, a mechanical bi-stable toggle, etc], I am not comfortable expanding my notion of 'consciousness' to include those primitives. That leaves room for me to expect that consciousness is not 'mere detection of any change of an external stimulus' but rather the emergent phenomenon that some congress of the simpler sensory and processing capabilities give rise to."

I don't disagree with that comment at all and think that GS is on the right track with regard to the congress of sensation and processing capabilities (e.g., perception), but I fear that once again I may not have stated my case clearly. A smoke detector, if it has consciousness at all (which is not a foregone conclusion), would not have said consciousness merely because it experienced sensory input, but because consciousness may be something other than that experience unique to an individual. If consciousness were instead something that universally pervades all existence, including atoms, galaxies, bowling balls, porcupines and bloggers, then even smoke detectors would have consciousness.

To explain my point, let me first say that in Buddhist terms, consciousness is not the same thing as the sense of self-identity. Instead, consciousness is just one of several factors which, when come together, give rise to the ego-self. Nor is consciousness the mere passive collection of data from the outside world. The passive collection of data may be termed "sensation," but even that term may be a reach, for to the Buddha sensation included the active sorting and classification of appearances into the categories of positive, neutral and negative.

Now, here's where it gets complicated: to perform this active sorting and classification also requires another property, perception, which in turn is conditioned by memory. And when a form is subject to both sensation, perception and memory, and is aware of the experience (consciousness), then there arises the concept of self-identity. To put it another way, self-identity is more than just consciousness but is instead an aggregate of consciousness, form, sensation, perception and memory. When any one of these elements are missing, poof!, the ego-self disappears.

From my prior discussions of six forms of consciousness each associated with a sensory input (touch consciousness, taste consciousness, smell consciousness, hearing consciousness, sight consciousness and mind consciousness), it is easy to assume that consciousness must therefore arise from sensory input. But in the Buddha's teaching, the origin of the six forms of sensory consciousness is memory, our habitual patterns of speech, action and thought. And the origin of memory is ignorance - ignorance of cause and effect and ignorance of the way things are.

In this teaching, from consciousness arises the naming and distinguishing of separate forms, and from the naming and distinguishing of separate forms arise the six senses, and from the six senses arises sensation. So, instead of sensation giving rise to consciousness, in the Buddha's view, consciousness gives rise to sensation.

I recognize that this is not at all intuitively apparent nor easy to grasp. Nor is it even my point - once again I digressed. My points are twofold - first, that if consciousness is merely one of the five aggregates of self-identity arising from conditional memory, then it has an independent existence and is therefore a "primitive" as discussed by the philosophers. Second, that if it is a "primitive," it must be everywhere in the universe, in every object, and in every atom.

Including smoke detectors. So smoke-detector consciousness does not arise from its passive collection of data, but from a universal, pervasive consciousness, arising from conditional memory, arising from ignorance, independent of its sensory capabilities.

I fear that this will all read like gibberish to me tomorrow, but I'll try to address the Christian Scientist issue then.