Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

You can look up the definition of the word. It is quite simple. Something doesn't have to be measurable to exist. I have thoughts, ideas. Can you measure them? No you can't. It is not a tangible thing so it can not be measured. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If the subject of consciousness was as simple as looking up the definition in some dictionary, then scientists and philosophers would not have been going round and round about this subject for years and years.

There is a difference in questioning what causes or makes up consciousness vs if it exists or what it is. Not my fault you ask the wrong questions.

We already know it exists. We just don't know how or what it is.
These are the questions.

I have not asked the wrong questions, you posted a useless answer.

If you are so sure it exists then why are you asking if scientists should say it doesn't? You obviously don't even know what you wrote. Tangibility doesn't determine existence.

Maybe you should have better reading comprehension. My question was:

Would science (scientists) be a lot happier if they could say there was no such thing as consciousness?

I asked that question because science cannot prove or disprove the existences of consciousness but they HAVE TO admit that it does in fact exist.

Therefore, they have to admit they don't have a clue about what it is.

According to who they can't prove it exists? Can I not walk up to a doctor and ask if a patient is conscious? Does he say "I don't know... I can't tell?"

Never mind. I can see that you have not really given the subject very much deep thought. You are using the term simply to mean the difference between being asleep or in a coma and or (apparently) awake.

But even when a person is asleep or in a coma, they are conscious to a degree.

Oh well. Maybe you should give it some more thought. We are not even on the same page in this discussion I can see.

Or if you think that scientists have found a way to detect consciousness and measure it and define exactly what it is SCIENTIFICALLY, --Then see if you can do that.

But I think if you will read this entire thread you will see that the issue, as far as I am concerned, has been completely resolved.

Consciousness is the biggest mystery of existence. It is the same problem science has trying to prove or disprove the existence of God.

It can't be done.

No i am answering giving the meaning of the word. It is awareness. You can measure someone's awareness by asking them or by scanning the electronic signals passed in the brain. Response to a stimuli is awareness or consciousnesses of it.

Now I may not be able to physically measure somethings self awareness but I can sure as hell as a person. The fact that I can't measure something doesn't make it non existent. Can you measure an idea? It is an abstract thing, but idea's exist.

You are trying to sound intelligent and yet you don't even defend your points or try to make any valuable arguments for them. So is your argument that I can't use the meaning of the word to prove you are incorrect?

Your whole argument is based on the fallacy that the absence of proof is the proof of absence and that is just not the case.

Note your above statement in bold.

It makes no sense.

Since everyone agrees that consciousness DOES EXIST (but it cannot be proven to exist) the "absence of proof is not "proof of absence."

I am not attempting to prove or disprove the existence of consciousness, simply because I KNOW IT EXIST because I experience it.

Everyone agrees that consciousness exists because they themselves experience it. Correct?

But science has no clue where it comes from or what it is. Awareness is just another name for it. It does not answer the questions about where it comes from or how it exists etc.

Did you even read the entire thread?

Where does matter and energy come from? Where does life come from? Where does happiness come from? Sadness? Love? Thought? Creativity? How does anything exist?

We can't prove any of it. So what? Scientists don't prove a lot of things. There are lots of accepted Theory's. They are Theory's because they can't be proven. If they could be proven they would be laws, and even then laws are not true in all cases.

I have no points to defend.

The question has always been this: Science presumes that we evolved from inanimate (unconcsious) matter.

And yet they cannot explain how inanimate matter goes from being inanimate (dead) to conscious (alive).

Or how that happens. In other words, science does not know how living conscious life evolves from inanimate matter, and they refuse to consider that there is no such thing as "inanimate matter."

It is all consciousness.

The answer is pretty obvious to me. IT IS ALL CONSCIOUSNESS.

AND yet I can't explain what consciousness is or how it exists.

Conscious does not equal alive.

You will not ever get to "alive" without it.

Everything is alive, but just not according to our limited understanding of "life."

A good definition for "life" (that incorporates consciousness) is needed, otherwise, we will never be able to tell the difference between a proton, a plant, or for that matter, a human being.

I tend to think of life as a manifestation of a sort of "concentrated" aggregate of consciousness. Notwithstanding the biological definition (which I think misses the boat), I'd say that life operates at the molecular level such that organized systems of molecules ("life forms") are able to process sensory (consciousness) information in such a way that the system (life form or organism) can purposefully react/proact with its perceived internal/external environment.

It's a crummy definition for life in the context of consciousness, but we've got to start somewhere.

Very good start.

a virus is alive yet not conscious, plants, etc

False. A virus IS aware (conscious) of its environment. Were it not so, it would "die" and decompose, rather than infect or otherwise transport itself, replicate, or adapt to its environment.

Plants are even more conscious than viruses, since they are aware of the time of day, position of the sun, temperature, soil nutrients, direction of the gravity vector, electric and magnetic fields, etc.

Actually, a virus is not aware of anything. They are more or less crystalline in nature and bump along in the body's blood and lymphatic system like rocks in a mountain stream. If they happen to bump into the complementary protein to their hypodermic style genetic material injector, it triggers, injecting proteins into a cell coded to tell the cell to make more copies of the virus. They have more in common with a land mine than a normal functioning creature. They adapt by constantly commuting errors in duplication thereby "evolving".