I overheard a discussion where someone was declaring that all things have consciousness. This included rocks, computers, etc.

Depends on what one defines as "consciousness". An egoic consciousness? No. But I believe allthings are a particular expression of consciousness.

Travis

I've recently read a book called "The Living Energy Universe". In the book the author makes the argument that everything is alive, conscious, and evolving. The theory is based on Systems Theory. The idea is that everything from an atom to the universe is a system. Usually a system is made up of smaller systems. The thing that binds sytems together is energy and information. The energy and information interaction create a primitive consciousness that allow the individual parts to recognize and alter one another...

Great post, Aaron.

Sounds like one of those potentially never-ending semantics debates. I've recently been involved in a similar type of discussion regarding atheism and whether rocks can be included in the definition.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective...

There is something awkward about saying rocks have consciousness. I am not sure that I want to equate consciousness with essence just yet, although there are some super perspectives about that project. For now it suffices to pay attention to the effects caused by 'particles whizzing around empty space'...nature in its element. What i share with the rock is an elemental quality, but to go so far with language as to equate my knowing awareness of the rock with the rock's own qualities, seems like a moot point to me. Is the declaration you heard an incarnation of the manifest destiny of all beings, or the innate virtue in all that is, or the latest telling of how being privileges something?
I think what you overheard was a mis-telling that can be done with language; not that it is wrong, but I don't understand it. Rocks, they have their thing-ness. I expected this from arguments about existence, ek-sistence and the like, but not about me and rocks regarding an attribute of mind. Books on the other hand, are a different story. What they have exists in a shared space, and if you like that definition of consciousness, well declaring it or propounding it is understandable. What I find difficult with this telling is that if everything has consciousness, then something futuristic seems to have happened to essence. Why is it preferable to say the rock has consciousness, be it from us, of us, or somehow wholey otherwise its own, when the alternative explanation seeks to resolve the incoherence of what that might mean by saying it is part of God, and that means infinite consciousness?

On second thought, no I like the ancient formula better; all things have essence (and sentience is particular). It's what they all have, and it too can change. I would be interested to find out in the rest of the declaration, whether there is some-super-thing all "things" are conscious of, or if for rocks their consciousness is limited to particles, whizzing, and being around empty space.

An argument that makes essence and consciousness equals is what? Modern?

It would depend on exactly how "consciousness" was defined. I believe that all things have spirit, but some things live in very long time frames, so we might not consider it as consciousness. There is awareness, but it may take many decades for anything to enter that awareness, depending on just what 'thing' we are referring to. A second to a piece of granite can be a hundred years or more.