This only makes sense to me in the context of the “all matter is conscious” theory, in which there’s something that it’s like to be say, an electron, just not very much.
As the theory goes, the more complexity there is in a system, the more the possibility space of potential experience grows.
It’s an interesting theory that some serious people take seriously, but like all current theories of consciousness, we’re not in a position to test it.
I find it far more plausible than computational functionalism at least.
I agree with that theory, and something I found fascinating is the etymology of animus:
"temper" (usually in a hostile sense), from Latin animus "rational soul, mind, life, mental powers, consciousness, sensibility; courage, desire," related to anima "living being, soul, mind, disposition, passion, courage, anger, spirit, feeling," from PIE root *ane- "to breathe."
For sense development in Latin, compare Old Norse andi "breath, breathing; current of air; aspiration in speech;"
- https://www.etymonline.com/word/animus
If you consider a wave function as a cycle above and below a unity linel, then a full-cycle oscillation could be considered a breath. So in my opinion, taking the two into account, I'd say "if it moves, it has a consciousness." (by the definition of animus)
As the theory goes, the more complexity there is in a system, the more the possibility space of potential experience grows.
It’s an interesting theory that some serious people take seriously, but like all current theories of consciousness, we’re not in a position to test it.
I find it far more plausible than computational functionalism at least.