The rocks are not conscious in a scientific or linguistic term and therefore your questions are based on assumptions only .
AS far as half asleep ....obviously you are conscious .
By the way is your Law of Attraction conscious in any way ?. . I suppose it is .......!. Well yes it is for sure .

Rocks have a small degree of consciousness but not in the scientific or linguistic term, I agree. Most people would not believe that rocks are in anyway conscious simply because they don't seem to be alive and they do not move. But my premise is that all things have consciousness flowing through them on a constant basis therefor they do have some degree of consciousness as they are, like everything else, connected to the whole.

The law of attraction is simply a law. It is not something that has consciousness because it is not a thing.

The law states that like vibrations attracts similar like vibration. (Like attracts like.) Everything is vibratory in nature and it is brought together or kept apart by vibration and frequency.

Thoughts are conscious traverse electromagnetic waves. They are conscious to a degree because like all things, they are connected to the whole.

Energy = Thought-information (waves)
Light = moving thought-information. (A traverse self propagating electromagnetic wave)
Matter = condensed thought-information or ~memory. (a standing wave.)

JB

If you continue to avoid addressing all of the things which contradict what you believe, then you will remain connected to a belief system that has no foundation.

You have yet to offer anything which logically contradicts what I have proposed as a valid refutation for the existence of consciousness(awareness) without knowledge.

All knowledge is learned.

I have offered irrefutable evidence time and again that consciousness is a product of perception.

Let's go back to the Venus flytrap, then we will address this again. Pay attention or you may miss it... again, for the fourth time.

The Venus flytrap is not aware of what is on it. Awareness requires knowledge.

It closes as a result of it's perceptual faculty which is innate, not learned. Awareness is learned.

The purpose of the plant closing upon it's perceptual faculty being triggered is a survival need only. There is no knowledge at all contained within the reaction. It is not a choice. It is an instinctive reaction.

As a matter of fact, it will close upon your finger just the same...

WHY?

BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AWARE OF WHAT IT WAS PERCEIVING, THEREFORE IT DOES NOT KNOW THAT YOUR FINGER IS NOT FOOD. IT PERCEIVED SOMETHING WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE, AND INSTINCTIVELY REACTED ACCORDINGLY.

THAT IS NOT CONSCIOUSNESS...

THAT IS PERCEPTION.

Enjoy your dinner...

EDIT

Remember this quote?



Reword the above by transposing perceive/perception with aware/awareness....

Makes absolutely no sense the other way around, does it?

You never answered this most pertinent question either.

What is required for consciousness/awareness to be actualized?

James,

The recognition of ego does not make s/he who recognizes it guilty

If you are unaware of the multitude of degrading and sarcastic comments stemming from JB and then strewn about carelessly and without regret nor compassion for anyone who is on the receiving end, then it is only because your perception has been skewed by your lust.

You are caught up in the middle here, as I see it. I mean no disrespect towards you, my sincerest apologies to you, and to you alone!

Affections for another can cloud our judgemental capabilities regarding the reality of the one with whom we have growing affections. If we are stuck in the middle, as you seem to be, then it is an uncomfortable position to say the least.

Love is blind.

If you cannot perceive the truth in my refutation against the notion that consciousness is the original source of life, then may your explorations in romance blossom into something that would never allow you to stop believing in it.

Out of respect for you, I will leave this topic alone from this point on...

Best of luck in your pursuit of honest affections.

You’re just playing with semantics. You’re demanding an ‘intellectual awareness’ based on how humans think. You’re thinking like a human, and only from that perspective.

However, your cheating yourself.

Why?

Because you’re ultimately demanding that perception cannot exist with out some level of awareness.

You do this by demanding that only living things can perceive. You refuse to allow computers to perceive.

You demand that a Venus flytrap ‘perceives’, yet you demand that it is unaware that it perceives,…



Well can certainly build a computerized robotic Venus fly trap that will do exactly what a Venus fly trap does. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that a robotic Venus fly trap can perceive.

You’re demanding that the Venus fly trap is somehow different from a robotic device that does the same thing.

It is in this demand where your whole house of cards falls apart.

You’re basically demanding that there is something special about living things (i.e. they already have a level of awareness) whilst simultaneously trying to deny that awareness.

You arguments seem to be to be entirely superficial to me.

Especially on a deeply philosophical level.



Yes, but all you just did here is deny your own demand that a Venus Fly Trap or any other form of life that doesn’t have a sophisticated brain is any different from a computer.

You’re just denying you own distinction between living things and computers.

You want to reject that computers can perceive because they aren’t aware of what they are perceiving. But then you demand that living things can’t be aware of what they are perceiving either.

You’re just running in circles.

Buuhhahahahahahaha!

Creative: Get over it already!

There are three choices posted in this thread. I have chosen the one that reasonably makes the most sense to me. The other two have even less "foundation."

None of them can be proven.



Any one of the three choices can be "refuted" as there is no valid proof for any of them. What I seek is new information. You have not presented any.

All you seek to do is refute and dismantle. All three choices can be refuted and dismantled simply because they cannot be proven.



One cannot learn anything without consciousness.



No you have not.

If consciousness were a "product" of perception according to your definition of perception (which is not the same as mine) then a computer could eventually become conscious. Yet you claim that this is not possible.

If you disagree that life arises from consciousness, (pantheist) then you must chose one of the other two options.

1.) You believe that consciousness only arises after life evolves. (atheist)

Or:

2.) You believe that an external all mighty all knowing god created life as we know it. (theist)

Now if you will kindly pick one, I will be happy to dismantle your belief if that is the way you want to play.

JB

This thread really needs a surgeon general's warning... it causes unconsciousness if you try to read it.

James I must address your post. It is really getting ridiculous the amount of times that you have placed your own words into my mouth.



Ok, then James... can you teach a human to think not like a human? That is preposterous statement in and of itself, and completely irrelevent and beside the point at hand, which you continually fail to directly address.



No. YOU ARE SAYING THAT I AM... I am saying the opposite!!! Obviously your unaware of exactly what I am saying.



Honestly James... Do not force my hand. Let it rest.



I supplied irrefutable evidence also, that of which you always fail to address.



Your opinion has provided no logical refutation. If you choose to believe that there is not an innate difference between life and a computer, that is your choice. I say they are different.



I DO NOT say that! YOU DO!! I say that perception is not only possible without awareness, but it has been explained exactly how, by me... without your logical refutation.



How would you know? You have yet to accurately repeat my argument, or quote the substance contained in the logic. You run off with some half-absorbed concoction which is all your own, then you argue with your own inaccurate determination of what you think I claim.



James you have yet to perceive the difference between awareness and perception, therefore you have yet to grasp it on a purely philosophical level... let alone deeply. We are still at the very beginning of the construct which facilitates the complete dessimation of the notion that consciousness alone yields life.




Uh no... what I did do with the Venus flytrap example was provide a very sound argument that perception can and does exist without awareness.



Your just making things up, while completely denying what is becoming overwhelming evidence against consciousness existing outside of life.

It begins with proving that consciousness is not first.

I have done that. You have failed to address the information I have provided, and are still clinging to the argument from last week. One in which I allowed the topic to be distorted by you and JB to the point of losing the focus.



The underlined above is pure unadulterated bull****. I have never claimed that.

Support it... quote my words, and support your stance.

You are arguing with yourself, and have yet to establish that you do indeed have a grasp on my claim.





This would be absolutely true in recent past. It is no longer accurate though, because I have stopped allowing you and JB to lead.

Now, would you address what I did say?

Creativesoul wrote:


If you have, (and you haven't) then you should be a hero to all atheists in the world because you will have proven that god does not exist.

Make a choice creative. Which of the three do you believe? Any? None? If none, then you have no point and no answers and no solution and no new information.



JB

Infatuation is blind my friend. Love sees clearly.

I’m not romantically in love with Jeannie anyway. I can’t fall in love with a woman I haven’t actually been with in the flesh. I’m too shallow for that.

However, I do confess with being in love with Jeannie’s mind. She’s an utterly brilliant woman. Quite refreshing to be sure.

I’m not saying that I agree with everything she says. On the contrary I often have to wonder about her support for things like bigfoot, crop circles, and other extraterrestrial concepts. I feel that she often gives too much support for things simply because they can’t be disproved.

However, I respect the fact that they can’t be disproved. So I wouldn’t argue with her about them, I would simply tell her that I don’t share her enthusiasm to include them my sphere of ‘beliefs’, but I would be willing to let them linger outside that sphere as unproven possibilities.

In any case, I tend to agree with her. You seem to be trying to suggest that you have established something concrete. I agree with Jeannie that you haven’t. And I’m not doing this to agree with her. I’m doing it because I just happen to feel the same way. I’ve explained why in my previous post.

I think your arguments are circular.



I’m aware that Jeannie is The High Priestess of The Universal Life Church of Brutal Truth and Honesty.

That where she’s coming from.

You seem to be upset because she won’t humor your position.

I don’t see that as being her fault.

She’s brutally honest with me too! You don’t see me running aorund sceaming brused ego.

I can take anything she dishes out.

What do you expect her to do? Walk on eggshells for you?

Address my claims JB...

Quote the substance of the argument which I have presented, and address it. Disprove it. Show it to be false.

I most certainly have proven that awareness is not necessary in order to perceive.

That alone proves your consciousness theory null and void.

If the Venus flytrap were aware, then it would not continue to close upon things which are not food.

It perceives without awareness, therefore awareness is not the foundation of perception. It only follows that it also cannot be the foundation of life, if it is not the foundation of all.

Enjoy your crow.



Bon appetit

Creative, you sure do love the illusion of being right. You sure do hate to loose an argument.

You have stated your opinion about the Venus flytrap. You have not proven anything. The venus flytrap is aware that something has landed or touched it. It is programed to react automatically. It can't help closing. That is an automatic reaction.

If you are at the doctor's office and he hits your knee with a hammer, your foot jumps. That is an automatic reaction. It would happen even if your eyes were closed.

You are not a venus flytrap and you cannot know the extent of its awareness. Awareness comes in degrees. It is aware of what it needs to be aware of. It senses and reacts to vibrations and touch, and light and maybe even music. Some have said that plants respond to music.

The point is, unless you can experience BEING a venus flytrap, you do NOT KNOW what it is aware of or the extent of its awareness.

You have not proven anything. You have only expressed your opinion.

JB

Creative,

Now pick your belief and take a stand.

Instead of dismantling others beliefs, reveal your own.

If you have no belief, admit that you don't know, that you have no point, no new information, nothing to bring to the table.

Come out from behind that mask you wear.

JB

Address the claim, not my person.



It is an automatic(innate) response to perceived stimulus. Consciousness requires reason, which requires knowledge. For one to be aware, it must know that is aware. It must be aware that it knows it's aware, lest it has no consciousness.



Uh... so? This has no relevence.

A plant does not equate to a human.



So what! What your point... Where is the information which logically refutes what I have said?

Awareness requires knowledge, which requires conscious thought processes, such as the critical thinking skills required for one to grasp the absurd reality contained within this conversation.



Yeah... or a rock...

I did not think you could quote the given logical progression, which makes perfect sense, and then effectively dispute it.

I cannot experience being a fart either, although I can safely claim that I have heard enough of them in this thread, and would surely know that they also have no consciousness.

I disagree on both counts. It's neither preposterous nor irrelevant.

Via mediation humans can indeed leave thought behind and go into mental state which does not require analytical thought. In fact, that's the goal of transcendental meditation. (i.e. a state of awareness that transcends thought)



Are you not demanding an fundamental difference between robots and living things?



What? You don't have a decent reply so you speak like this?



Bull crap. The so-called evidence that you have supplies can also be applied to robotics which you reject. You're being inconsistent in your demands.



Exactly! CreativeSoul says they are different. But can't provide a reason.

And then you're upset because no one will accept this as having been demonstrated

That makes no sense at all. This is precisely what we are saying. You haven't demonstrated this to be true. Yet you keep demanding that you have!



I haven't caught that detailed explanation yet. You'll have to run that one by me again. I don't recall you haven't established this.



You seem to be claiming that perception is POSSIBLE without awareness. Yet you refuse that computers can perceive.

What is PERCEPTION without awareness? You seem to being laying down a double-standard to me.

You seem to be demanding that lower life forms have an 'awareness' of their perceptions, yet you refuse to allow the use of the word "aware".

It's just a double-standard as far as I can see. You're just playing with semantics and demanding that perception is a form of awareness but you refuse to allow the word to 'aware' to apply.



I never say where you got past other than by trying to use a 'slight of hand' via semantics. By rejecting that computers are perceive you're demanding that living things are 'aware' of what they perceive. On some level. I don't care how primitive that level might be. It's still a form of 'awareness'.



But by your example you would then have to allow that computers also perceive in the same way that Venus Fly Traps do. But you refuse. You demand that there is something more going on with the Venus Fly Trap than what you example entails.

But you REFUSE to say what it is.



Oh come on Michael. Do you have any clue what you are claiming to have proved????

My god Michael, if you have proven this you will have settled a millennia of debates and the atheists would be throwing parties all around the globe!

All religions would be dead in the water.



Gladly.

If you believe you have proven what you claim I suggest you write it up and submit it to philosophy, science, and religion journals.

I don't see it myself. Maybe you're just way over my head and I can't understand it. But if you've done what you claim you'll be a very famous man. That's all I know.

You seem to have disproved both pantheism and Christianity.

That's what comptuers do.

In fact, you wouldn't even need a computer to build a venus fly trap. Just a few transistors connected up to a sensor and an actuator would do just fine.

Yet you would demand that there is a difference between the 'artificial' electronic Fly Trap, and the real one.

You demand that the artificial one doesn't truly perceive, whilst the living one does.

Yet you refuse to describe what the difference is. If it's not some level of 'awareness' then what's the difference?

This is where you've lost me Michael.

You just keep coming back with, "There just is a difference"

But that's no answer.

This premise has not been proven, established or agreed upon so all that follows is a moot point anyway. If this is your premise, then I can see where we don't agree.




I disagree with this assertion. As I have said before, awareness comes in degrees.

Because all things are connected, consciousness flows through all things. Yes, even rocks.

JB

TAKE A STAND CREATIVE.

As they say, s.h.i.t or get off the pot.