YES! Conscious DOES come in degrees. That is exactly what I was trying to say. If you have enough algorithms, all doing just one simple task, none of whom are conscious themselves, you eventually achieve consciousness. It's not a light switch going on. It's more link a dimmer switch being slowly turned up.



I love learning new things. I also like to argue my own ideas. It proves to myself that I understand what I'm talking about.



No doubt. But, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.



Very well, present your evidence they anyone is truly conscious and I'll take a look.



What troubles me is when people try to pass of their beliefs as facts. I have always been a critical thinker. I question everything.

I don't care if you want to define god as a kindly old man that remembers your birthday or or as a yet undiscovered force of nature. It is irrelevant to the question I asked.



Then the powerful would have one fewer tool to abuse. Maybe it would save the lives of a few doctors who's only crime is ending unwanted pregnancies.

I am not trying to put an end to religion. On the contrary, I want to see it taught in schools. Western civilization cannot escape the marks Christianity has left upon it.

But, we have strayed off topic.

Then you seem to have contradicted yourself. One minute you claim that we are not conscious, then the next moment you agree that consciousness comes in degrees.

Well then lets proceed upon that agreement that consciousness comes in degrees. If it exists in degrees, then it obviously has to exist.

Right or wrong?

This statement is the one that is not logical:



Consider the dimmer switch being slowly turned up. When there is no light at all, is it on or off?

(I would say it is off.)

When the light finally appears visible is it on or off?

(I would say it is on at that point.)

LOGICALLY there has to be a point where the light in the dimmer switch actually went from OFF to ON.

Unless it is always on, but just too dim to actually see.

The point at which the light in the dimmer switch goes from off to on, would be the point of "the miracle" when you apply that logic to consciousness.

But what if their was no electricity hooked up at all to the dimmer switch? The dimmer switch would never gradually bring light. Right?

Think of consciousness is the electricity.

Your theory seems to presume that if something is so small that we can't see it, then it does not exist at all.

The light is either on or off.

Consciousness/(electricity) either exists or it does not.

The light is just the manifestation of the electricity.
and life is the manifestation of consciousness.

Still waiting for you to explain the LOGIC in the statement.

1. "If you have enough algorithms, all doing just one simple task, non of whom are conscious themselves..."

It follows:

that you eventually achieve consciousness.

None of the above is logical.

If a light is on a dimmer switch, and the dimmer switch is closed the light is OFF.

When you turn the dimmer switch, the circuit is now OPEN and the light is ON.

It is either ON or OFF.

ZERO OR ONE.

SOMETHING OR NOTHING.

You cannot take a billion zeros and add them together to eventually get "ONE" no matter how many zeros you have.

You can't combine a billion dead cells to create a living organism.

You cannot take a billion unconscious things and create a conscious thing.

"Then you seem to have contradicted yourself. One minute you claim that we are not conscious, then the next moment you agree that consciousness comes in degrees.

Well then lets proceed upon that agreement that consciousness comes in degrees. If it exists in degrees, then it obviously has to exist.

Right or wrong?

This statement is the one that is not logical:"

Exists it does.

If one could 'step up' ones consciousness so as to be aware of all of mankind...

One would have a 'greater' consciousness. (level)

Aye Degrees be present.

Of course it's logical. When the light is out it's off and the light on is on. But, with a dimmer switch we have a number of different degrees of brightness. So, let's say level 0 (off) is totally unconscious. level 1 might be something like an amoeba, not really conscious in any measurable way. Level 2 could be an insect. And we slowly advance up the ladder to full on, god like consciousness.

Yes I know how a dimmer switch works. But I think your logic is faulty.

I tend to agree with the the doctrine of Panpsychism. Panpsychism is the doctrine that mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe. So I guess we disagree.

The reason your logic is faulty is because the light has to be either on or off.

If there is no electricity, it will never be on no matter how far you turn the dimmer switch.

You can't combine a billion dead cells to create a living organism.

You cannot take a billion unconscious things and create a conscious thing.

Just because you yourself cannot detect consciousness in an elementary particle that does not mean it is absent.

Wallace D. Wattles, 1910

THERE is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe. A thought in this substance produces the thing that is imaged by the thought. Man can form things in his thought, and by impressing his thought upon formless substance can cause the thing he thinks about to be created.

In order to do this, man must pass from the competitive to the creative mind; otherwise he cannot be in harmony with the Formless Intelligence, which is always creative and never competitive in spirit.

More substance dualism... I started another thread on this topic that began with a video smacking it down. Here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2upDm-xFqMo



Very well, if you are able to detect consciousness in elementary particles please present your evidence and educate a poor old fool like myself. I enjoy being proved wrong. I really do! It means I've expanded my mind in new ways. So please, show me how it's done.

I am NOT going to present the different ideas of the origins of life. Suffice it to say that there are creditable theories that suggest that life isn't simply dead or alive, but a slow evolutionary process that happened over a long period of time. In other words, there are dead things that ACT as if they are alive. They consume, grow, eliminate waste and self replicate and yet they are not alive.

Perhaps a different metaphor would be helpful.

If I have a shot of tequila, I may feel nothing at all. But if I drink shot after shot, over time I will become progressively more intoxicated. Too drunk to drive for example, but not so drunk I pass out.

Consciousness is like this. It happens gradually as more and more algorithms are added.



Yeah... You are quoting a 100 year old self help guru... Right...

Okay, it starts out talking about art. That's all well and good.

But, this reads like religion. Where is the evidence for this "formless intelligence?" What effect does it have on the universe? In case you didn't catch it, these questions are rhetorical and require no answer.

Have you ever read a real philosophy book? Plato? Kant? Nietzsche? Socrates? These were really smart guys that weren't out to a make a buck off the less educated. We know this because they told people things they didn't like hearing and that's no way to make a decent living.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc

One more point.



Evolution is exactly the opposite of this statement. It's power is in explaining how a stupid thing can make a smart thing when given enough time.

Theory of Relativity – A Testament to Creation
Using the observed cosmic expansion conjunctively with the general theory of relativity, we can infer from the data that the further back into time one looks, the universe ought to diminish in size accordingly. However, this cannot be extrapolated indefinitely. The universe’s expansion helps us to appreciate the direction in which time flows. This is referred to as the Cosmological arrow of time, and implies that the future is -- by definition -- the direction towards which the universe increases in size. The expansion of the universe also gives rise to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the overall entropy (or disorder) in the Universe can only increase with time because the amount of energy available for work deteriorates with time. If the universe was eternal, therefore, the amount of usable energy available for work would have already been exhausted. Hence it follows that at one point the entropy value was at absolute 0 (most ordered state at the moment of creation) and the entropy has been increasing ever since -- that is, the universe at one point was fully “wound up” and has been winding down ever since. This has profound theological implications, for it shows that time itself is necessarily finite. If the universe were eternal, the thermal energy in the universe would have been evenly distributed throughout the cosmos, leaving each region of the cosmos at uniform temperature (at very close to absolute 0), rendering no further work possible.

The General Theory of Relativity demonstrates that time is linked, or related, to matter and space, and thus the dimensions of time, space, and matter constitute what we would call a continuum. They must come into being at precisely the same instant. Time itself cannot exist in the absence of matter and space. From this, we can infer that the uncaused first cause must exist outside of the four dimensions of space and time, and possess eternal, personal, and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capabilities of intentionally space, matter -- and indeed even time itself -- into being.

Moreover, the very physical nature of time and space also suggest a Creator, for infinity and eternity must necessarily exist from a logical perspective. The existence of time implies eternity (as time has a beginning and an end), and the existence of space implies infinity. The very concepts of infinity and eternity infer a Creator because they find their very state of being in God, who transcends both and simply is.

I support no religion. I am Agnostic.

The evidence (and proof) is in the logic.

You cannot take a billion unconscious things and create a conscious thing.

You can't combine a billion dead cells to create a living organism.

You cannot add a billion or any amount of zeros and get ONE.

That is the only evidence that is possible (OR NEEDED)(and you know it so that is why you can feel so confident demanding proof) simply because our scientists can't even "find" or measure the elementary particle; but they know it exists because of what it does

Your flawed argument was:



We are not talking "smart" and "stupid." We are talking about the life force which is what I have been calling, (for the lack of a better word) consciousness.

If consciousness (to you) means "smart or stupid" then you don't really understand what I am talking about.

Is electricity smart or stupid? No, its not. But it is what sends power to your dimmer switch.

So lets just call it "Chi." Chi is the life force.

Without the electricity, your dimmer switch will never ever ever bring any light.

Without the life force, your cells, your atoms, your particles will never ever ever create or manifest life.

Thats correct, and thats a great example illustrating the continuum fallacy, which is exactly what the 'if an aggregate of cells is conscious, then every cell must be conscious' argument (which is incorrect) is based on.

Whatever your idea of consciousness is, it apparently is not the same as mine. I may be using the wrong word entirely. Perhaps you think of consciousness as having to do with being "smart" or "stupid" or being drunk, sober or passed out, or being aware of multiple or complex things.

I'm going to just call it the life force. (Chi) Perhaps the word "consciousness" and "conscious" are the wrong words to be using when you get down to the elementary particle level.

But everything has this life force in it. The universe is alive, whole, connected and intelligent.

It is On rather than off.

If it were off, it would not be expanding. It would be dead. (The electricity would be disconnected.)

No dimmer switch, no expansion, no life.

May the force be with you.

Balderdash.

What gives you the idea Socrates or the like were such saints? Now matter the level of technology mankind aspires to...

It brings along the the Free Market of our Ancestors...

Socrates in his time was successful.

Example from our time.

Glen Beck... Tells things to his audience that they don't like hearing. (and yet they watch)

Guess that can make a decent living. Blows your theory out of the water.

Fact, like Truth, has no agenda.

Our known universe has energy because it contains mass in motion.

Mass in motion IS energy equivilant...
If it takes energy to create movement of mass.
Existance of a moving mass creates also energy.
Newtons Laws apply.

Simply because you are in the realm of light does not mean such a basic truth does not work there...

When the know universe is the measure.

Jeanniebean, Your argument isn't logic, it's inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even where all of the premises are true. Here's another example of inductive reasoning:

As science goes deeper and deeper into the atom, looking for the most elementary particles, they have learned that the smallest bits are really nothing more than than little impulses of energy and information vibrating at different frequencies. What is a thought? It's a tiny impulse of energy and information. Therefore, the universe is made of thought.

That last statement is a huge leap into BS and requires evidence to establish it's validity.

Life and consciousness are not the same thing. There can be life without consciousness. A good example wold be a brain injury patient. He may have all he needs to be alive, but his consciousness has left the building. He may be able to go on like that for years with no hope of returning to anything resembling consciousness. But, he is still alive.

Consciousness
-adj.
a. alert and awake; not sleeping or comatose
b. aware of one's surroundings, one's own thoughts and motivations, etc.

Life
-noun
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

We have to be careful with language, otherwise we may become confused. We MUST agree on words and their meanings.

Using the definition above, it would be a simple matter to test for consciousness. Simply stick it with a needle and look for a reaction. If there is none, we can judge it to be unconscious of (at least some of) it's surrounds.

I refuse to get into any arguments about "life force" or "chi" or any other such new age dribble. Until you can collect it and bring it into the lab for examination it simply doesn't exist.

So, I think we've established that the god hypothesis is a testable one and therefore within the realm of science. Yes?

You then, are closed minded. You butcher and take ownership of the term "consciousness" and you disallow me from using the term "Chi" or "Life force" and call it "dribble." You are turning your back on the obvious. That is foolish.

Collecting it and bringing it into the lab would be a very simple process.

I would bring in one dead guy and another (live) guy in a comma. The one in the comma that is still living is the one who has some detectable and obvious life force.

The dead guy has been dead for over three days. There is no possibility of transplanting any of his organs because there is no life left in them. They are beginning to rot. Even this body has some life force left in it, but not enough to support a human life.

Now, if you or your scientists, after examining the bodies, can't tell the difference between the two, then you are the ones who need help because you are blind and overlooking the ridiculously OBVIOUS.

If these are your final conclusions, and you continue to turn your back on the obvious, then you have reached the end of your quest for knowledge about life and existence in this universe. I leave you in your ignorance.

May the force be with you.

That totally depends on what rules you are going to lay down and enforce towards the meaning of "consciousness" and "life."

You state: "We MUST agree on words and their meanings. "

By that, you mean that I must agree with YOU. Not the other way around.

You have taken ownership of the definition of the terms "consciousness" and "conscious" and now "life" also.

So that effectively backs me into a corner, and I am forced to use your definitions, and so I resort to the use of different words or terms for what I am talking about which are "Chi" and "Life force."

So then what do you do?

You say:


And you attempt to diminish and belittle my points with things like:



Therefore you have gagged me, and plugged your ears and turned your back on this very valuable information.

It is your loss. You have reached a dead end until your scientific community can discover and harness and measure the particle and the life force you so venomously deny exists.

Good luck with that.

With that kind of attitude... it will never happen. You are done. You can go no further.

Science has reached the bottom of the building blocks of the universe and they have discovered that it does not exist, and they are perplexed.

As Einstein said:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

I put that there because of your rude habit of calling these doctrines "new age." Their isn't anything "new age" about them. They have been around longer than ancient scripture.



It does? I hardly think so.



Everywhere.




Rhetorical because you feel they can't be answered or proven.

But for someone who wants to know the answers (not you, you don't want to know or even hear it.)-- I will tell it anyway... for those who have ears to hear.

The effect it has on the universe is that it and only it creates and manifests and expands the universe.

Without this thinking substance the universe would die and disappear, just like the rotting corpse in your lab.