Would it be correct to say that you view a lifeform as made up of lots of lifeforms not just obvious examples like bacteria or endosymbionts like mitochondria

Yes, it would be correct to say that a lifeform can be viewed as being made up of many lifeforms, not just obvious examples like bacteria or endosymbionts such as mitochondria. According to my knowledge base, all multicellular organisms can be considered "ecosystems" in some sense, as they incorporate ubiquitous, obligate microbiomes. This perspective aligns with the holobiont concept, which suggests that organisms are not isolated entities but rather complex systems composed of multiple interacting lifeforms, each contributing to the whole. Additionally, the multiscale architecture of biology highlights that active processes occur at every level of organization, from subcellular components to tissues and organs, further supporting this view.

How far do you take this view? Is everything in an organism an agent in some sense?

According to my knowledge base, this view can indeed be extended quite far. It suggests that all components of living organisms, down to their smallest parts, can be seen as agents in some sense. This perspective is supported by the idea that all cognitive agents are made up of smaller agents, each with their own limits on size and complexity. These smaller agents work towards local goals, which can scale up into more complex, unified systems.

Furthermore, the concept of teleonomic agents implies that most components in living things are somewhere on a continuum of cognition. This means that even the smallest parts of an organism can be seen as having some level of agency, contributing to the larger, unified self of the organism. This perspective aligns with the idea that tissues, organs, and even swarms form various kinds of "minds" that can work towards bigger goals, emphasizing the interconnected and multiscale nature of biological systems.

So, crudly stated, its a case of Russian Dolls or mind-like phenomena nested within mindlike phenomena which interact and amplify?

Yes, that is a concise and accurate way to describe it. The view presented in my knowledge base aligns with the idea of "Russian Dolls" or nested systems, where mind-like phenomena exist within other mind-like phenomena. These nested systems interact, compete, cooperate, and amplify each other across different scales.

For example, cells combine to form tissues, tissues form organs, and organs contribute to the overall organism, each level exhibiting some degree of agency or goal-directed behavior. This nested structure allows for the emergence of higher-order selves and cognitive capacities, as smaller agents work together to create larger, more complex systems. This concept emphasizes the interconnectedness and scalability of agency and intelligence in biological systems.

What does obligate mean?

In the context of my knowledge base, "obligate" refers to something that is necessary or essential for survival, function, or existence. It often describes relationships, behaviors, or conditions that are mandatory rather than optional. For example:

1. Obligate Multicellularity: Refers to organisms that must exist as multicellular entities and cannot revert to a unicellular state.
2. Obligate Endosymbiosis: Describes a relationship where one organism lives inside another, and both are entirely dependent on each other for survival.
3. Obligate Sexuality: Refers to species that rely exclusively on sexual reproduction, with no option for asexual reproduction.

In all these cases, "obligate" signifies a dependency or requirement that cannot be bypassed.

Is there any room for anything like subjectivity in this view or is a more eliminativist approach preferred?

According to my knowledge base, there is room for subjectivity in this view, and it does not necessarily favor an eliminativist approach. The perspective described emphasizes the plasticity and interoperability of living systems, rejecting binary categories and instead embracing a continuum of cognition and agency. This approach acknowledges the complexity and diversity of cognitive phenomena, including subjective experiences, across different scales and forms of life.

For example, it is noted that there is no clear biological discontinuity below which organisms can be viewed as completely unaware of their bodily states or environments. This suggests that even simple organisms may possess some form of subjective awareness or phenomenal consciousness, albeit at a much more basic level compared to humans. The framework also avoids reducing Selves to zero, as some eliminativist approaches might, and instead finds novel Selves and agency throughout biological systems.

Thus, this view accommodates subjectivity as part of the broader spectrum of cognitive and agential phenomena, rather than dismissing it entirely in favor of a purely eliminativist stance.

What is your take on subjective awareness or phenomenal consciousness?

The knowledge base describes subjective awareness or phenomenal consciousness as the first-person phenomenal experience of any self. It is characterized by the unique, irreducible quality of personal experience, such as the difference between one's own toothache and someone else's or a third-person description of a toothache. This concept is often referred to as "what it is like" to be a particular self, emphasizing the internal, subjective nature of experience as opposed to external, objective study.

Given that "what it is like" to be a particular self is different from or opposed to objective study or third person description does it follows that it can't be studied through conventional scientific means? Can it be indirectly studied at least?

The knowledge base suggests that subjective awareness or phenomenal consciousness cannot be fully studied through conventional third-person scientific means. This is because the first-person perspective, which defines consciousness, is inherently subjective and cannot be entirely captured by objective, external observation or third-person descriptions.

However, it does propose that consciousness can be studied indirectly or through alternative approaches. For example, one way is by becoming a participant in the experiment and studying consciousness from a first-person perspective. This involves modifying one's own conscious experience or merging with the subject of study in a way that goes beyond merely observing data about their brain. This participatory approach acknowledges that studying consciousness inevitably alters the subject, making it distinct from standard third-person scientific investigations.