I will comment to this post because we're(meaning Di, myself, and you) actually in agreement and we're just expressing much the same thing with different words. Honestly, Jb... the above is unnecessarily opaque and confusing verbage which asks of both, a logically and physiologically impossible task.

Imagining necessitates consciousness. Therefore, while one may talk themself into believing that they can "imagine leaving the human state of consciousness", they are still imagining, and therefore have not left consciousness at all. Occam's razor applies here.



You're claiming that single-celled organisms willfully, intentionally, and deliberately evolve their own sensory organs for the purpose of being able to perceive that which they are not even capable of being aware of?

Your entire imagining here requires...

1. that vibrations themselves be cognizant without sensory apparatus
2. that a single celled organism has wants without a sense of self
3. that it willfully controls it's own evolution in order to fulfill these supposed wants/desires.

The problems here are evident. You've attributed conscious thought, intention, and purpose(willful action) to a single-celled organism itself, which is incapable of consciously perceiving anything at all to begin with. You've unknowingly admitted that in the explanation which claims the purpose to be able to do such a thing.



Evolution does not support the notions you've presented here Jb. Adaptation can increase sensory perception capability. Nothing you've claimed about willful, intentional, and purposeful adaptation follows from that.



What you've described as "feelings", if you remove all of the fallacy, boils down to what Di and I are calling physiological sensory perception.

That is correct.
Although I don't know what you are calling "fallacy."

Not impossible at all.

I am simply asking you to use your IMAGINATION.



I did not claim otherwise.






I know. I did not ask you to leave the human state of consciousness. I asked you to IMAGINE DOING IT.

Why is that difficult for you to understand?

Yep.
And you have no way of knowing what they are aware of.




1.You have no way of knowing how conscious a single-celled organism is.

2. "Sense of self" is not necessary in the way that we (humans) think of that term.

3. I do not claim that vibrations themselves, are cognizant. What is necessarily cognizant is that which vibrates and puts forth a frequency.

Thoughts are the frequency.
Thoughts are things. (as we agreed)
All things have a frequency. (all things vibrate.)

The thinker of thoughts is the consciousness unit.
The thinker of thoughts puts fourth a vibration(frequency.)

If you and Di want to have a discussion about what notions the theory of evolution does or does not support that's fine with me.

But I got the impression (from Di) that she actually wanted to hear what my ideas on the subject were. Well, these are my ideas. I didn't know you were going to require that I stay within the confines and boundaries of current scientific theories and what you and some other scientists have already concluded.

If the 'evolution theory' has it all figured out, then what is the point of this discussion? I personally don't think they have it figured out, and I think the theory of evolution is sorely lacking, but if you are not willing to expand your thinking then there is no reason for me to continue telling you what my thoughts on the subject are.

Di didn't seem to appreciate my cutting and pasting a theory from a more credible (and acceptable) source into this thread and she wanted to know what I thought. Well there you have it.

I have nothing further. What I've already stated is sufficient. Your explanation contains an inherent self-contradiction.

I don't agree. If you think it does, please point it out.

If you are going to make a claim like that, you should explain why you think so. I'm sure the misunderstanding is on your end.

I've already pointed it out. You can look for yourself at the rejoinder should you care to understand.

I have not contradicted myself. I do not see where you have pointed it out. I don't know what you mean by rejoinder.

You claim that a single-celled organism itself, is incapable of consciously perceiving anything at all to begin with.

Where is your evidence to support that claim?

How would it be possible for a single celled organism to be totally unconscious and unaware of anything and yet still be alive and evolve into more complex creatures?

Where is the evidence to support the claim that a single celled animal is not aware of anything and not conscious?

If a living single celled organism (unconscious in your view) evolves to a point where it is obviously conscious and aware, where and when does that magical event from unconscious to conscious begin?

Anyone?

If it is a "gradual process" (as I have been told before many times..) there has to be a point that it went from unconscious inanimate matter to a conscious living thing with DNA.

This would be the point of a miracle. Where is that point?

We agree that thoughts are things

We agree that all things vibrate and have a frequency.

I think we can agree that there is a line that we as humans can draw between what we consider to be non-living inanimate objects (like sand and rocks etc.) and living organisms. However all things, even non-living inanimate objects have a frequency.

So what main thing makes them different from living organisms?

It is DNA.

DNA has the information and formula for life. DNA is deposited throughout the universe via the tails of stars and comets. It is literally in the star dust. The stuff of life bursts from the centers of galaxies. It has the formula and the information to transform non-living matter into living organisms. Once a living organism emerges from the DNA field, it begins to 'think' on its own.

That is the basic foundation of thought that comes from living creatures.

Here's the rejoinder...



And here's the point, in short...

If a single-celled organism already perceives, it needs not to grow sensory organs for perception purposes.

If a cat can be unaware of itself, and that is entirely possible as is shown by placing a kitten in front of a mirror, and it is clear that cats have all of the sensory organs that they do - because they do - and yet can be unaware of themselves anyway then what reason to we possibly have to conclude that a single-celled organism has self-awareness?

It goes against everything that we already know about consciousness.

You claim would require our concluding - hypothetically - that an amoeba be more self-aware than a kitten. It does not hold up to known fact, nor common sense.

to me, it's a vibrational flow in ethereal form, that actually feels good physically, when an idea works.

A single celled organism senses things and responds to stimuli.

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago."

(NOTE: I did not make the claim that single celled organism were "self aware.") But they sense and are aware of their immediate environment.

But if, as you claim, they did not "perceive" or sense anything, they would not have survived, and they would not have evolved, and we would not even be here today.

So they obviously do grow sensory organs in order to better sense their environment.

I have ears and eyes to prove it.

The diversity of single-celled organisms is astounding. These differences are apparent in both the structure and function of the organisms. For starters, single-celled organisms range greatly in size, from less than 1 micron (one-millionth of a meter) in diameter for the smallest bacteria, to more than 100 microns for some protozoans.

The manner in which single-celled organisms acquire food varies greatly too. Some, like the amoeba, go in search of food, crawling on pseudopods (temporary bulges in the cell membrane) toward prey that they eventually engulf and digest internally. Others, including all of the different species of algae, make their own food by harnessing the sun's energy just as plants do. Structures called chloroplasts inside the algae contain the pigment chlorophyll that allows them to use the sun's energy to make carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water.

Several types of algae are so versatile that, depending on light conditions, they change the mode by which they obtain food. When sunlight is available, Euglena can be seen gravitating toward the light, which they sense through a photoreceptor, or eyespot, at one end of the cell. If the light is too bright, the organisms will swim away toward more optimal light conditions. If no sunlight is available, however, Euglena have the ability to transition entirely to absorbing nutrients from the water. They may acquire their food this way indefinitely, assuming sufficient nutrients are available and light is not.

http://access.teachersdomain.org/resources/tdc02/sci/life/stru/singlecell/index.html

i wanna pet the euglena.....

1. As I said before vibrations themselves are not cognizant, they are "things." (More specifically, thought forms.)

2. So what would a single celled organism 'want' (not having a "sense of self?") It gravitates towards the light. It wants life. It eats and hunts. It wants (and is programmed by DNA) to reproduce.

3.Survival instincts are part of programming. Most of the time even humans don't use their Will to control their lives, they just follow their programming. Some people even claim that humans don't really have a will. (But there seems to certainly be a will of some kind at work in the organizing and evolution of life, as cells communicate and work together.)

DNA has and is the information formula for life with the ultimate goal of evolving to a self aware sentient life form.

That has been accomplished.

That is human. That is a very complex structure. All from a single celled organism.

You claim that a single-celled organism itself, is incapable of consciously perceiving anything at all to begin with.

Where is your evidence to support that claim?