Saying a plant is "aware" because it turns toward the sun is just destroying the meaning of the word "aware." You've got to stick to accepted meanings of words in order to be taken seriously. Same with saying someone is conscious when asleep or in a coma. That's just contradictory to the accepted meaning of the word.

I don't care about being able to prove consciousness, but I do care about words.

Then you should be aware that the greatest stumbling block to proper scientific research into consciousness is its hopelessly inadequate "red-herringish" "accepted definition." The best definition of "conscious" is the synonym "aware" (and even an electron is aware of another electron thru things like spin orientation and photon transfer...basically "awareness" can be defined as information transfer & "processing" between particles or systems)...By taking this simple definition as an accurate one, we can open up the research and see that "higher" consciousness is simply the processing of the aggregate information received by an organism (for purposes of reaction/proaction in the context of its spacetime/environment).

The problem with normal human language is it's "loosey-goosey" definitions resulting in wild goose chases in science. This is compounded by lay-peoples' and scientists' very human "intuitive" feelings on subjects that might be totally off-base and leading them astray in terms of research. (In other words, we seem too wedded to our egocentric concepts that our nature is somehow "special" or "divine.") The best thing we can do is take a less parochial and more pragmatic, more precise view and try to introduce definitions that more precisely define things like "consciousness."

Consciousness is more than feeling like a beer (reaction), and getting up to get a beer (proaction), it is also knowing a beer is in the fridge (information processing) because you saw it there (information transfer by photons to the sensory apparatus of the organism). If one is unconscious, no processing occurs...you don't feel like a beer; you don't remember one being in the fridge, and couldn't see it if it was pasted to your nose.

I rather like the definition of consciousness that covers everything from photons to thirsty people; after all, thirsty people are just a collection of elementary particles themselves, so how could they possibly have something that isn't already in the particles?...Obviously everything is conscious to a greater or lesser degree.

The thing about making statements about what you think is conscious or not is you can't ever really know.

You can only speculate from your observations.

Consciousness exists in all things in different degrees. The consciousness of a plant is certainly not like human consciousness but it is still conscious to a degree in my opinion.

The thing is, it cannot be disproven or proven. It is only an opinion no matter what.

The only thing you can know for sure is that you are conscious because being conscious involves experiencing. It involves an exchange of energy and some type of memory or record.

Those so called definitions of words are very limiting. If you can't use them, there are no other words to use in their place. Therefor one has to chose the best words to express the state of something.

Don't be so rigid in understanding that if there are no words to describe a thing you assume it does not exist. That is silly and very limiting.

I am very serious when I say that everything is conscious to a degree and that everything is aware to a degree. If someone chooses not to take me "seriously" that is their mistake. It is at that point that they have closed the door to understanding what I am saying. That closure is their limitation that they have placed upon them self.

Exactly! Humans are so self involved that they only think in terms of their own "consciousness" and thus define the word in relation to themselves. How limiting.

I think your original hypothesis is still correct though...After many years of observation of the human animal, I've concluded that there is no scientific evidence for consciousness...not on this planet anyway! LMAO

I like how you try to state something as a fact and in the very next sentence use "my opinion".

So if we are just going to change the meanings of words then we can say there is no evidence for anything. For example there is no scientific evidence that dogs exist. And of course when I say dogs I mean 3 headed Cerberus dogs, but I just call them dogs and so now I can argue that there could be so such things as dogs as science can't prove it.

Being aware and having instincts are 2 very different things. But what can we expect trying to argue science with people with no scientific back ground? Also it is not sciences job to prove things. There are many things in science that are not proven that are believed and supported. All proof adds is certainty of something not truth.

As far as "changing the meaning of words" we do it all the time. We, as humans invented language and we as humans, define words. So, yes, we change the meaning and definitions of words constantly. God did not write the dictionary, humans did.

And yes, everything I state "as fact" is my opinion (to you) even though I regard it as fact until I decide otherwise.

There is scientific evidence that dogs exist and comparing that to consciousness is lame. All "facts" and "evidence" of things observed and measured are still agreements. When we all agree what a dog is and that they exist, we also agree that it is a fact that dogs exist.

We do not all agree on what consciousness is, we can't measure it, we can't see it and we do not all agree on the definition. That is why scientists and philosophers have been talking about it for hundreds of years.



So what do you think instinct is? Programming? Subconscious memory?
It is my opinion that an instinct is simply a different level of consciousness.



Are we arguing science? I thought it was closer to philosophy. No matter...

I am a thinking person who thinks very deeply about the nature of reality without the restrictions that most people have due to being "educated." I am thankful I don't have a ridged "scientific" background because I have seen what kind of box that has put people's minds in. Just because a person thinks they are "educated," does not mean they are more intelligent or smarter that someone else who is not. I really grow tired of such arrogant resorts in a debate.



Then I will take that remark to mean that you agree with me that science cannot prove the existence of consciousness. At best, all they and anyone can do is try to define it.

Therefore, if they have no way of determining what it is, and where it exists, then they cannot make statements implying that a virus or a tree are not conscious.

Actually you are incorrect. Because unlike you, science uses the accepted scientific definitions of words. You see there has to be a standard of things in science. So they would say they are not conscious.

You say you are arguing philosophy and not science but you keep bringing up scientific evidence.

Yes my dog analogy was correct with yours because the scientific definition of dog is known and can be shown to exist just like the scientific definition. Then you went and changed the meaning of the word to claim it didn't exist just as I did.

Philosophers think they know stuff. Scientists know what they know and know what they don't know.

yet you think,feel,exist!
'splain that!

What is your point?

I am not saying that consciousness does not exist. I know it does.

I am not incorrect. That is only your opinion.

If "science" wants to shut itself off from the rest of the world and humanity and lock itself up inside of a box with rigid inflexible laws about the meanings of words, (particularly consciousness) which I don't agree with you that they do, then they would not progress forward much where the true nature of reality is concerned.

And yes, as everything stated, that is my opinion.

The word "consciousness" (like "God) in my opinion, has not been correctly or adequately defined.

If we as philosophers, or scientists want to progress towards learning the truth about how we came to exist out of nothing, and how we became alive and conscious, new definitions are in order.

Consciousness is a fact, not an hypothesis in need of scientific substantiation to become a "theory." The theory of consciousness has nothing to do with its existence, only with the possible mechanisms by which it might operate.

The "situation" is identical to that of evolution...Just substitute "evolution" for "consciousness" in the above.

That consciousness exists is undeniable. Proving it would be tantamount to proving a tautology. In fact, "Consciousness is unprovable" is probably a Godel sentence.

energy retaining memory as a means of displacing and/or re-distributing itself would explain consciousness

While I agree that consciousness is a fact, I do so only because I experience it personally. However, I cannot prove (or know if) a plant is conscious and I cannot prove (or know if) even another person is conscious. I can only decide what to believe.

In a lucid dream, I have met what appears to be "other people." I have asked them if they are real and conscious and most of the time they answer, "yes of course." (They appear to be conscious, and they say they are, but are they?)

Are you? You might appear to be, and you might say you are, but are you really? Or are you a figment of my own imagination?


Not even close.



That I exist is undeniable. (for me)

That you are conscious is unknowable. (except by you.)

How does memory differ from data?

How does information differ from knowledge?

While i could bore you with what I believe, I don't see much point to it, so i won't expound on all that crap. I will however take issue with you on the following:



Everything is based on our perception. Science takes the view that the common perception is "reality". We observe our process of consciousness and believe consciousness occurs. We observe the process of evolution and believe that it occurs. How is that "Not even close?"

BTW...I could be a lucid dream and a figment of your imagination, or a figment of someone else's...maybe even a figment of my own (which is probably closer to the truth, since we are the imaginations of ourselves and create our own realities)...On the other hand, I might not exist at all, even as a figment of your imagination. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't know anything...Based on what my kids have told me, I must not exist.

Feeling,reacting,Conscious?

The (our) common perception "is reality" but only because we say it is. We have decided to call our perceptions "reality." (However, it is highly unlikely that it is the true and ultimate reality because our perceptions are only a tiny fraction of what actually exists.

As for "evolution" that is a completely different subject. You stated that We observe the process of evolution and believe that it occurs. How is that "Not even close?"

We have not come close to observing the process of evolution. For example, there is no observed process that tells us where a flying reptile (pterodactyl) evolved from. There are too many unanswered questions about evolution to "believe" it or call it a fact. Science assumes way too much as far as evolution is concerned. They are way off the mark thinking they know how evolution takes place, which I believe takes place on a quantum level and not anything close to what science assumes.

And the subject of evolution is not even close to a discussion about consciousness.





I thought you said that you were not going to bore me with what you believe.

But, for me to conclude or even consider that you could be a figment of someone's else's imagination, I would first have to establish or prove that "someone else" actually exists and is real and conscious, and not just part of my own elaborate lucid dream reality. This can't be done.

And when I said that you are either real and conscious (which I can't know or prove) OR a figment of my own mind, as in a lucid dream reality, this means that from my perspective, these would be the only choices. One or the other.



You are either real and conscious, or you exist in my lucid dream mind world. You cannot claim to NOT exist there, because if I see you or talk to you then you are part of my experience and my experience is part of my reality, so in that sense you do exist in my dream reality, whether I decide you are real or an illusion.

Therefore the only person left to decide whether you exist is me. That decision would depend on whether or not I decide that my perceptions are real or simply an illusion or dream, then it would depend on whether I decide if my dreams are to be considered "reality."

It boils down to what I decide because it boils down to my personal perceptions and experiences. I might consider yours but I don't and can't know if you are even real.

This dilemma is true for every conscious person as they have their own perspective on reality, assuming there are other real conscious people.

The one solution to this is mental telepathy. When we as humans can finally communicate with each other as we were meant to do, telepathy, then we can know that each other is real and conscious via exchange of information through universal mind connections.

Scientists Confirm That Reality is an Illusion - Our 3D Universe Is A Hologram

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngieHWZXcM&feature=watch-vrec