You may have answers, but do you have any evidence? Even if your ideas are logically consistent they still require evidence. Without evidence your answers mean nothing.

Yes I think I do have evidence. Rather you see it as evidence is another story.

My evidence is logical evidence.

I find it illogical that consciousness is an emergent property--

(...unless the premise is established and proven by scientists that the apparent consciousness that we observe in this reality is drawn from an already existing consciousness.) -- that I would believe.

Unless science can prove that at some point in our evolution, a piece of inanimate matter went from being dead or unconscious to conscious, then I have to stick with a more logical hypothesis.

There are no "miracles" that cannot be explained.

They have to explain and identify the miracle or I don't buy their 'evidence."

Until then, the most logical hypothesis is true (as far as I am concerned)


Consciousness exists within, and permeates through everything that exists.

That isn't evidence. It's just words. I've already explained to you how consciousness can emerge for nothing without it being a miracle.

If everything is conscious as you say it is, simply measure the consciousness of a rock. That would be evidence.

You have? Sorry, would you run that by me again?

How does consciousness emerge from inanimate matter and at what point does it go from being dead and unconscious to alive and conscious?

And how is that NOT A MIRACLE?

and if it is NOT a miracle, then how exactly did it happen?

You have not explained it nor proven it.

If you had, you might receive the the noble prize for that.

So give me any concrete example of anything going from dead to alive, or going from unconscious to conscious.

and tell me how it happened.

(Have you seen the movie Frankenstein? Was it a bold of lightening?)

***************



Unless science can prove that at some point in our evolution, a piece of inanimate matter went from being dead or unconscious to conscious, then I have to stick with a more logical hypothesis.

There are no "miracles" that cannot be explained.

They have to explain and identify the miracle or I don't buy their 'evidence."

Until then, the most logical hypothesis is true (as far as I am concerned)


Consciousness exists within, and permeates through everything that exists.

It is evidence. In fact it is better than you or scientists have.
It is logical evidence.

Explain the miracle.

Evidence is observed, not imagined. You don't have a single bit of observational evidence to back up what you're suggesting.

Consciousness: the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

It's not a miracle. The word miracle suggests intervention by a deity. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. It's a highly unusual event. Given a long enough time frame anything can and will happen. If we lived for millions of years, we'd all be lottery winners.

A "miracle" is comparable to jumping to the top of cliff. I'm suggesting a slow climb up a long slope.

Think of a single algorithm. Now, think of two algorithms, and three, then millions. One by itself isn't conscious. However, millions, all working together could be. One alone isn't aware of it's environment and is therefore not conscious. But millions, working together, all doing different jobs are aware if their (it's) environment. In order to be conscious, one must be aware of ones environment. That's what consciousness is. Awareness of ones environment. So, a thing without the ability to sense it's surrounds simply cannot be conscious.

Now, I want to ask you something. What about death? If an entity was alive and conscious, but then died, it's "soul" going to wherever souls go, is it's carcass still conscious? If everything is conscious it logically follows that a dead body must be conscious too, yes?

When I used to get stoned, I imagined us to be infinitesimally small.

So small, we could actually be like smaller than a microscopic germ inside a living being.

So small, in fact the our whole galaxy fit into a (dry) cell of a liquid compound.

The earth, in this theme, could possibly be a proton circling the sun (neutron). The magnetism of our system keeps us in the same rotation as the atoms we are familiar with.

I could imagine, if there was a microscope strong enough, there would be found evidence of live organisms thriving on and in the protons of the atoms we know of.

Could there be micro-mini versions of us. As well as versions of us so large, all we see is the space and can't see the whole?

Props to WILLING2, (i get the same feeling AFTER i finish staring at the wall for 20 mins..)

but seriously i was looking into this , and it seems that the wording used by the people reporting on the various journals is misleading
(so im going to explain this in layman's terms;
not because im smarter than you, you know im not,
but because im a layman- see that makes sense doesn't it?)

from what I've seen in various sources is not so much a "virtual reality" universe as it is a "Projection" universe the term Hologram being more closely linked with a Movie projector; the flat film being our universe. the holographic projection is simply the projection of the real universe , which is EXACTLY the same, except it is being projected onto a different surface, like a movie, or one of those window paintings on a church.

the question that seems to have everyone one confused is, since what we see is the Projection,
WHERE is the original film?

some QM/ST theorists think that it might be coming from the FUTURE, radiating back through time........

Science does not have the ability to measure any amount of consciousness. But they do agree it exists in different degrees or levels.



Not all "evidence" has to be "observed."

But what "observed evidence" do you (or scientists) have of the point in evolution where an inanimate unconscious (dead) chunk of matter goes from dead to alive or conscious to unconscious?

You can only "imagine that too. Who has 'observed' that event? All we have actually observed is that some things seem to be more aware, or more intelligent, or more conscious than others. So in truth, scientific evidence is no closer to proof.

Appearances do not always depict what is actually true. I am speaking of logical evidence not appearances.

IE: The sun appears to travel across the sky sinking in the west, rising in the east. And yet we suspect that is not what is actually happening because of other evidence. What other evidence convinced us otherwise?




If the event happened at all, then it is what would be called a miracle. I don't believe in miracles, therefore, it never happened.

If you and if scientists want me to believe that inanimate matter at some point went from being dead and unconscious to alive and conscious and they cannot explain exactly how or when that miracle happened then they cannot state as a fact that consciousness is an emergent property.

That is just an assumption and only because it appears to be the case according to what they are able to observe. But science has advanced into the quantum world, and things look very different now. There are a few who are venturing beyond that dead end idea that still requires a miracle that they can't explain.




How? If they don't have some small degree of consciousness already, then how can they ever work together? If you took a million dead bodies,do you think that eventually they would somehow start "working together?" If so, how exactly would that happen?



If one alone isn't aware of anything, how can it even have any job and how can it work with any other dead or unconscious thing? I am saying that it must have some degree of awareness however small, to begin with, or some force called "consciousness" is flowing through all things causing them to 'work together.'




This untruth is based on assumptions. How aware are we of our environment? How much of our environment are we actually aware of? How much light and sound that exists can humans see and hear? How much of our universe is observable to our human consciousness?

How much of his environment is a worm aware of? Even if a worm only sees darkness and dirt, he is aware of that much.



Some people say that it actually takes a body three days to completely die. Cellular consciousness will last until the cells decay or are eaten. The consciousness of elements remain.

Yes, there is some consciousness left in a dead body, but I would not call it "human consciousness." Human consciousness is a collective consciousness. A human body is like a universe of living things, cells, bacteria, etc... all working together and sharing information and energy.

If skin or organs are removed from a 'dead' body, they can be transplanted and continue to live in another body. Cells have memory. An organ's cells have memory and will grow and heal as that particular organ. These are very low consciousness levels and they are governed by DNA programming.

First of all, science can and does measure consciousness. Doctors do it everyday in trauma centers all over the world. Dan Dennitt has been measuring it in great detail for a number of years now.

Secondly, There's no need to prove emergence because some things are conscious and other are not. We have lots of evidence that non-conscious things were around long before conscious things were. Therefore, consciousness must have emerged from unconsciousness. If you insist on calling that a miracle, go right ahead. Personally, I think this kind of "miracle" is far more likely than conscious rocks.

I'm afraid I cannot document any life forms becoming conscious because it happened millions of years ago, before there was anyone around to witness it.

I know it's your claim that everything is conscious. If this is true, prove it. Just one example of something that's generally considered to be inanimate demonstrating consciousness. A stone, a chair, a car, whatever you'd like. My argument that some things aren't conscious doesn't need proof because something that isn't there doesn't require proving. It's just not there.

The burden of discovering evidence lies with your side of the argument.

Lastly, to further explain how emergence can happen from a large number of algorithms; Your brain has millions of cells and yet none of them can be said to be conscious on their own. But, all of them, working together are, indeed conscious.

Dan Dennitt! An Atheist who apparently believes in miracles.

Sorry, you lost me there. IMO he's way off track, plain and simple.



An assumption (wrong) based only on what humans are currently able to detect.



An assumption without proof. Its like saying that since the sun clearly comes up in the east and sets in the west, therefore the sun must be circling around the earth.




I don't believe in miracles. Apparently Dan Dennitt, an atheist, does.

The alleged "miracle" would be the instant when a dead unconscious inanimate chunk of matter, having been spat out by the "big bang," becomes conscious to any degree at all.

It never happened, as all things are conductors of consciousness already and from the very beginning.



You can't document it because it did not happen that way. But if all evolution happened at all, or "millions of years ago," then it is still happening today.



Very well. The makeup of a "stone" actually allows it to interact with its environment, according to its consciousness, which I will identify as its frequency and vibration and other elemental activity(..unknown to me.)

If I see a stone, I can pick it up and throw it at a person and hit them in the head. If that stone did not exist within a certain frequency range, I would not be able to even see it or touch it or pick it up. I am aware of it. I see it, and feel it. It is aware of me, its frequency range allows interaction.




And if you want to understand my hypothesis, you have to try to understand my logical argument or explanation. Otherwise, you remain at a dead end that requires a miracle just like the rest of the scientific community.



This is another wrong assumption. Each cell has a capacity for consciousness and is a conductor for consciousness. I am not talking about HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS which is what I think you are talking about. I am talking about other degrees of consciousness which is awareness.

A bunch of unconscious (or 'dead') chunks of anything cannot gather together and then suddenly be conscious and start 'working together.'

If my brain cells are not conscious, they are not alive. If they are not alive they cannot work together.

Its called being 'brain dead."

Human consciousness is a collective consciousness that requires millions of conscious cells and other living conscious organisms that can interact and communicate with each other. This interaction and communication requires consciousness to be conducted through all of these organisms.

Dead cells will fall off of your body. Live cells will grow, divide and transmit information. Dead cells have lost their cell consciousness. A dead cell reverts back to elemental consciousness.

A dead human has lost its human consciousness. Eventually all parts and cells will revert back to elemental consciousness.

Dust to dust.

What do Dan Dennit's views on deities have to do with his observations of consciousness? I'm also an atheist BTW. Do you think that colors my views? I'm sure it does, but no more than a supernatural believer's views are colored by their beliefs. At least my views are based on actual, observable evidence and not flights of fancy.



No, you're the one assuming. You have no evidence that everything is conscious. My view is based on the evidence.



Something that isn't there doesn't need proving. It's just not there.




Prove it.



Yes, evolution is still going on today.



Where's the evidence that the stone is aware of you?




What makes you think I don't understand your points? I do understand them, I simply disagree because I live in a world based on evidence.



Again, you are the one assuming. You assume that a single cell can think. If this is so, where is the evidence?

Yes dead things can gather together and there are many examples of it in nature. Crystals are not alive, but gather everything they need to grow form their environment. Clay does too. It just lays there in a stream growing bigger and bigger, gathering what it needs as it floats by until some bit breaks off and starts the process again. How about that? Dead things with the ability to reproduce! This is actually one of the hypotheses of how life started.

And I never said consciousness happened suddenly. On the contrary, it happened very slowly over many, many years.

This is it. I'm done. The last word I give to you, but I'll never see it.

Because most people's view about a miracle is that some magical deity intervened. Dan Dennitt's views require a miracle where suddenly life and consciousness appears from inanimate matter.



And you (and scientists) are assuming that consciousness is an emergent property based only on their limited perceptions of appearances, when they cannot pinpoint how or when the specific point where the miracle of consciousness suddenly appeared.

They can't prove it. They only assume it based on appearances, just as people used to assume the sun circled the earth... which turned out to be wrong.




Consciousness exists. It is there. That has already been established. What has not been PROVEN is when it suddenly appeared which is what scientists ASSUME HAPPENED SOMETIME DURING EVOLUTION.. but they have no idea or proof.



YOUR OWN WORDS" Something that never happened does not need to be proven. You are the one who is claiming it happened and you can't PROVE IT.

If you and scientists and Dan Dennitt says that miracle happened the burden of proof is on YOU and science.



My hand did not pass through it. It maintains a boundary and a surface and a weight and mass. It acknowledges me by the very fact that I can pick it up. That is mineral consciousness. It exists and I can see it and feel it. If it was not a conductor of its mineral consciousness, it would not exist.



If you understood my points you would understand how neither you or science has any actual evidence at all to claim that consciousness is an emergent property because they cannot explain or prove the miracle they claim happened.



That would depend on how you want to define "thought." My claim is that a single cell is alive and conscious. It certainly does not think like a human thinks. It is aware of all it needs to be aware of in order to be alive and do the job it is programmed to do. That is all the consciousness it needs.



It cannot happen slowly over many many years if it did not exist. In order to grow, it must exist. In order for it to emerge, it must emerge from somewhere else.

A woman does not get pregnant slowly over many many years. One day she is not pregnant and then something happens. Then she is pregnant. She cannot be "just a little bit pregnant." She is either pregnant or she is not.

Anyway, I guess you believe in the miracle.

If you believe in the emergent property of consciousness, then you assume that a combination of inanimate unconscious elements accidently bumped into each other and then strange things began to happen. At some point in this chaos of things bumping into other things, life and consciousness was born.

If you believe that, then you have to believe that scientists, should be able to take certain basic elements and from the ground up, create conscious life.

I believe they can do this. But the basic elements they would be using would have to be active. If they are not "active" they will not work. I don't believe there is anything they can do to an inactive or "dead" element to make it become active. That would take a miracle.

The property in all active elements is consciousness which is conducted through the elements.

At these elemental levels, the term "consciousness" is inappropriate. I would describe it with a different term like "life force."

So, may the force be with you all!!

Unshakable conviction.

May the force be with you.

My convictions are not "unshakable." It just takes a lot to dislodge them. I don't believe in miracles.

If anyone would or could explain the miracle, I would certainly listen.

It would have to boil down to the elements and what makes them active or 'alive' enough to be used in some soup that eventually results in a living conscious organism.

Look at the term "emerge." What is something doing when it is "emerging?" What is it "emerging from?" In order to emerge, what is required?

Note below the definitions. Number 4 is incorrect. It is not the original meaning of the word, and was only coined after the theory of evolution began using the term.


1: to become manifest : become known <new problems emerged>
2: to rise from or as if from an enveloping fluid : come out into view <a diver emerging from the water>
3: to rise from an obscure or inferior position or condition <someone must emerge as a leader.

4: to come into being through evolution <----- wrong meaning, and an assumption. )

There is no miracle involved. There is no wrong meaning. Meaning is use. If you want to know what something means you must look at the context of what is being discussed. "Emergent properties" have conventional usage. It is when the sum total is greater than than the sum of the parts. Water has an emergent feature of quenching thirst and fire both that neither of it's elemental constituents possess.

There is a bit of irony at work as well Jb. In order for your arguments to work, we must redefine some very common terms. You've claimed that rocks have consciousness. Reasonable folk should just laugh and walk away.

That's what I keep saying. And yet the current "emergent property" theory of consciousness REQUIRES A MIRACLE.

I don't believe in miracles.




?? I never said there was a "wrong meaning."




One of the wonderful "features" of water is that it quenches the thirst. Yes, I agree. it is these combined features of all the properties of water..that makes it what it is. I call that a "collective consciousness." (Not "emergent" features)

It is just like a human cell is not a human being. A human being is a collective. There are millions of organisms and bacteria inside of your body, which is like a universe. It is a collective consciousness.




Laugh and walk away and you will not learn anything, and you will remain at the dead end that requires a miracle. There really is no miracle when you embrace my hypothesis. Everything has a logical explanation. There is no need for any miracle.

Yes some common terms need to be expanded or redefined. That is why I also call "consciousness" a "life force."

Like gravity, and electricity, consciousness is a basic and necessary force in the universe.

As this life force goes to work it will gather elements into a common collective and that is what emerges that we call "consciousness" as we know and understand the term