Seeing red

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a strange comment, since only 1 of the 4 options I mentioned involved everything thinking. . . and even that under the specific circumstance that there is a physical interchange of information.

But tell me, what non-arbitrary standard can you say that differentiates between any particular bunch of stuff and "thinking?"  All over the universe there are persistent states, and interchange of information, etc.  Who's to say that a Galaxy, as its practically infinite particles do their dance in space, isn't receiving input, processing it, and outputting a behavior?

All definitions of all terms are, essentially, arbitrary.  You keep using the word as though it meant something in context, it doesn't.   I'd draw the line for mind at a bare minimum, at self awareness.   Anything which behaves as though it has a sense of self is a candidate for mind.   There is more, but this has to be met or I'd be inclined to call it information processing......like most plants, rocks, or photons.  

Well, is there an arbitrary cut line, or is there a specific critical mass at which we can non-arbitrarily say, "This thing has mind?"  Because if any processing has idealets, then I'd accept that there's mind all over the place-- just something so elemental that we can't comprehend it.  But if it has to respond to a name and cry a little when you forget its birthday, that's a different issue.

I'd say the cutoff line is the point at which we see expressed in other things that which we see expressed in ourselves.  So, "below" worms and above photons.  We could go through rep by rep and get a more specific answer but we'd have to agree on a line first.   The intitiial hurdle is of self awareness is enough to winnow down the vast majority of candidate minds (even among living things).

Is there a line?  Is there a minimal structure which can be said to be mindful?  I think we're likely looking at a spectrum, so it may be that this is not an issue of reality, but just of what you personally are willing to call mindful.

Insomuch as people are fond of categorizing things, sure. We may be looking at a spectrum, but I don't know what would sense it would be to consider it a spectrum of mind. Or why would extend the spectrum of mind, wherever we set it's boundaries, to include all things. As before, not all things can fly......though I'm sure that we could argue a toaster in if we really wanted to.

Not that any of this matters..ofc.....I'll remind you that it's all insufficient. I'm talking in gibbberish, for all it must be worth.