I will add here that I do agree very much with the claim that vision is the most powerful sense, and that there are good reasons for thinking its evolution would be much more advantageous on land. But rather than equate this with consciousness, how about with dimensionality? That is, vision is closely associated with the ability to experience (assuming the organism is conscious) or sense (without making any assumptions about consciousness) three dimensional space.

Other senses are generally associated with the experience of fewer spatial dimensions. Consider smell or chemosensitivity. You note that passive sensation of chemicals and some other stimuli is like a game of hot or cold. A more precise way of putting this is to say that it’s associated with one dimensional experience. When an organism (or even a chemosensitive bacterium) moves towards a chemical-emitting source, it needs to sense only a single dimension of space: an axis formed by the source at one end and itself at the other. As the stimulus, such as concentration of chemical substance in the water, becomes greater, it is closer to the source, and there is a relationship, albeit not a linear one, between concentration and distance. In fact, the most primitive organisms (such as various phyla of worms) sense the world largely in this fashion.

Somewhat more evolved organisms, such as insects and other arthropods, also make extensive use of chemical signals (pheromones, for example), but generally live on land and also have visual systems. These organisms might be said to be in a between-state where their experience of the environment is largely two-dimensional. This has been shown, for example, in forager ants, which measure the two-dimensional distance between their nest and a food source–even when they must climb intervening hills–and the praying mantis, which will attack cardboard rectangles if they have two-dimensional relationships similar to those of normal prey.

Full three-dimensional experience appears to have evolved in the highest invertebrates–flying insects such as bees, and cephalopods like the octopus–and is present in probably all vertebrates. Almost all of these organisms rely heavily on vision, though of course may make use of other senses as well.

But what I like about the focus on plan-making is that it provides a transition point at which an organism has a kind of consciousness that is much more morally significant. In college I became a vegetarian for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the idea that animals are conscious (by my definition) and that consciousness is morally relevant. But I’ve since repented on that point, recognizing that not all consciousnesses are created equal (and for those interested in my diet, I still eat mostly-vegetarian with the occasional bite or two of delicious, tasty animal flesh as a rare treat). Some consciousnesses are much more morally significant than others, IMO, and plan-making seems to be a big part of my intuition here.

(And before anyone brings it up, yes, this means that human embryos, newborns, and even the severely developmentally disabled may not have morally significant consciousnesses. But there are plenty of other criteria by which they are still deserving of moral consideration, not least of which is that they are human and we ought to take care of our own. Moving on.)

The argument from your first post that shared awareness will make us more moral is a tricky place to tread. On the one hand, people will pick up on the Borg thing, and connect it to 1984 and groupthink, and the next thing you know you’re being called a Nazi. But while it’s true that mob mentality and propaganda emphasizing group loyalty can lead us down the worst paths humans are capable of treading, that is not the necessary outcome of a breakdown of individuality. Buddhism and other peaceful, introspective doctrines teach that individuality is an illusion and encourage rejection of the self in favor of a unifying worldview in which consciousness is seen as a pervasive and fundamental part of all existence.

(I’m not saying Buddhists are right. But I am saying that, despite systematically dismantling the “self”, they’re not Nazis.)

So don’t get too optimistic that shared awareness is a moral panacea. It could go either way—most likely both. Sense-sharing technology would certainly have applications for disaster relief and other “good” causes. But let’s be honest: the moment we invent that stuff, it’s going to be used for porn.

So, contemplation of plans…hmm…could you see yourself doing a post on why some matter would have contemplation of plans? What advantages would it give them?