The quantum physics double-slit experiment suggests the very act of observation is indeed a significant interaction, although not necessarily "a part of the rock". However, I think we are merely arguing the definitions of "consciousness" and "perspective".

To simplify my definitions:
Consciousness is the ability to interpret information and then form a perspective.
Perspective is the result of interpreting information, and therefor needs consciousness to be formed.

If you agree with my definitions then perspective comes from consciousness, but is not necessarily a part of it.

Yes, I have already agreed there may be different interpretations, and that the thought of the priority of either consciousness or perspective will depend on which you favour.

Indeed, so we agree that there are different interpretations therefore we can now agree to disagree. It was a good discussion though, plenty of food for thought. :)

On that we agree! :)

Consciousness is the ability to interpret information and then form a perspective.
Perspective is the result of interpreting information, and therefor needs consciousness to be formed.

If you agree with my definitions then perspective comes from consciousness, but is not necessarily a part of it. — SnowyChainsaw

Consider the universe is entirely information, and while not everything in existence has to understand the information, it all interacts with it. Therefore anything can have a perspective, or everything interprets/interacts with information.

I don't consider just any interaction able to form a perspective. The interaction must have a consciousness behind it in order to interpret (note: interpret does not necessarily mean understand) the information and form a perspective. You also cannot assume all interactions are interpretations of information. If you put a rock on a table, the rock has no concept of what the table is or is not, only that it is counteracting gravity etc. This is an example of an interaction without interpretation. If you sat on a table you are not only prevented from falling or whatever, but you also know that it is a table or at least an object. You are taking in the information and interpreting it, coming to a conclusion that is your perspective.

So if interpret does not always mean understanding then, for example, a plant that bends towards the sunlight is conscious, and therefore has a perspective. A single celled organism that creates the proteins it needs to survive would be conscious, and have a perspective. Why did these chemicals on Earth become conscious? It keeps boiling down further, until it seems that DNA is somewhat conscious, It seems the entire universe is conscious.

I know it seems radical to jump from we are conscious to the whole universe is conscious. But follow the path and this is what it seems. I mean we are the universe and we are as we are.

When I was born, how did 'nature' conjure up my perspective into this body? Why and how did it decide that my perspective is the right one? These were questions that I asked myself since I was 9 years old. Why am I me? Why am I not my brother? How did 'I' happen to be? — Susu

When you say "perspective," you seem to indicate what is traditionally termed a "mind."
Your mind (feel free to ignore my nomenclature), as a separate entity from yourself, is illusory (it's often termed the "user illusion"). That might not feel intuitively right, but a lot of truths don't. You can ask questions like "why am I me?" because as a human being, you are self-aware, and that means that you can effectively think about yourself as a separate entity because you can observe yourself and your mental processes and distinguish, "that is me." "I am thinking about philosophy." &c.
I would posit also that asking, "why am I not my brother?" is logically equivalent to asking, "why is 6 not 7?" or "why is red not blue?"

Actually, i agree with that to some extent. Concepts like this have been rattling around my noodle for awhile now. I just haven't really fleshed out or explored the concepts in-depth. I also think this might be a requirement of the definition for life.

However, the key difference between us and plants/single celled organisms is that we do understand the information we come into contact with, at least we think we do/are able to ponder upon it.
I would argue that plants etc are not able to interpret the information, merely act on chemically fueled instincts but I'm not so sure that is true anymore.

Ones ability to react, ponder, or understand is merely due to the presence of a CPU with external sensors. It would be incredibly boring to exist in a universe where that had any significant meaning. Just merely a fact and a difference.

that's a nice metaphor, but psychologists and philosophers of mind are moving of on from the metaphor of mind as cpu to one of mind as embodied self-organizing system.

Oh, I was basically just saying things like plants don't really have a center to bring things together. I agree that the mind is much more complex than a CPU, haha.

I don't see that as something particularly significant, not in the grand scheme of things. Our abilities to interpret, ponder on and understand information may seem impressive to some, but that is only because we don't have a frame of reference apart from ourselves. It is safe to assume, I believe, that the universe is full of mysteries we are so far unable to even detect.
Nevertheless, having a CPU, not having a CPU and the processing power of that CPU provides a good indication of whether an event/entity/arbitrary mass of exponential probability has intelligence/conciseness/self awareness.

I like that. It's crazy, the energies come together and create intelligence, how it can work in a chaotic harmony.