If this is where you remain, then we can go no further.
But I might add that you are assuming an awful lot about what a plant might be aware of. (but plants ARE AWARE OF SOMETHING.) --- THAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS.

You seemed to criticize me for "assuming" and I see clearly that you assume much more than I do.

I am trying to explain to you why I state that everything is conscious and we have not even gotten to the minerals or the protons. You are still stumbling around with the belief that living things are not conscious even in a small DEGREE.

And this, after you already did agree that consciousness comes in degrees.

I don't know why you believe what you believe, as they are just as much ASSUMPTIONS as anything I state.

That is the standard and common ASSUMPTION.

But if that is true, then that belief leads to the belief that a robot with enough complex circuits could become suddenly conscious of itself.

Correct?

Okay the thing that no one has been able to nail down is when does THAT MAGICAL MOMENT HAPPEN?

Because suddenly going from dead to alive, or from unconscious to conscious IS CLEARLY A MIRACLE.

Even if you believe that consciousness "evolved slowly over time" that either means that at one time it either did not exist at all or it means that it has ALWAYS EXISTED.

Which one is it? Has it always existed or did a miracle happen?

This is the fact:

If consciousness has not always existed, THEN there has to be a point at which a MIRACLE HAPPENED and suddenly it appeared.

So the short form for my hypothesis is that I don't believe in miracles. I believe in science. I believe that everything has a logical explanation.

I am actually more logical and more scientific than these scientists who believe in the emergent property of consciousness - because they have to believe in that moment when a miracle suddenly happened and a dead inanimate object or hunk of slime became conscious.

I have said before that everything I know is an assumption based in the information I have. Any opinion I have can be changed when I've been given convincing evidence. I just don't think your logic is convening enough. I disagree with your conclusions based on my own understanding of the subject.

If I've ever said anything you thought was insulting, I'm sorry for it. I don't ever intend to insult anyone.

But the reason a topic about the will and how free or not free it is, always leads to a discussion about consciousness is because of my other hypothesis that the ability to actually use the will (free will) as apposed to just following your programming is directly related to your degree of CONSCIOUSNESS.

I am not "insulted" and I have found that some scientists postulate that bacteria are intelligent and conscious, and they don't have brains. Other animals exist that are also conscious of their surroundings and they don't appear to have brains either. Scientists don't know everything.

You must have a reason for believing the things you believe. But please read what I have written here and try to understand what I am saying or we can not proceed any further with anything but misunderstanding.

If consciousness is an Emergent property...then it either has always existed in some degree, or there HAS TO HAVE BEEN A MIRACLE where it actually appeared.

Do you at least understand that statement?

Well i wasn't trying to refute your postulate, i was simply exposing mine. And yes, most of what i said is based to some degree in assumptions...all hypotheses are. But to be fair, how can you avoid assumptions when dealing with something of which we know so little?
I like your theory, i don't think i could share it, but the logical construction seems very interesting.
On a related note, when you correctly pointed out that me saying that the consciousness can not survive without the brain is an assumption (and while an assumption, is by far the most logic, empiric based one that we can come across as for right now) you implied in a way that it can have a non material sustentation...At that point we are no longer talking about science, we are talking about metaphysics...and well, that is not knowledge...its just opinion. You would have to start considering a soul...unicorns and god. Which it just does not seem to follow the train of though that you were having... So I am pretty sure i did not get what you were trying to say. I would love if you could re visit the point for me (if its not much to ask).
Thanks in advance.

As for the above statement, "I just don't think your logic is convincing enough." I might add that I am trying to go is simple steps so that at each step where you are not in agreement, we can discuss further and find out exactly why you don't think it is convincing.

We have not even scratched the surface and you seem to have made up your mind.

Don't disagree with my conclusions based on your own understanding of the subject until you actually hear me out.

You are stuck at #2. You feel that consciousness is an emergent property.

If this is true, then I am saying that if consciousness emerged, it either had to emerge from a tiny degree of consciousness already in existence, or there was a MIRACLE at which point it suddenly appeared, however small.

I don't believe in miracles.

Apparently you do.

Miracle is not the word I'd choose. However, I suppose it's as good a word as any. No matter how long the odds are that this "miracle" has of happening are, it only needed to happen once for everything to have played out the way it has.

It's the same for life. It only has to happen one time for everything to be as it is today.

Given enough time, anything can happen. Even miracles.

Thanks. I agree that we all have to assume certain things. I want to get to the bottom of why we are assuming them.

Scientists assume that consciousness is an emergent property simply because of the appearance of that. They cannot actually see consciousness at work. They can only see its effects.




For me, everything is science. I don't believe in miracles. On the other hand, just because you can't see or measure something does not mean it does not exist. Are you familiar with Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm?

David Joseph Bohm FRS[1] (20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992) was an American theoretical physicist who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, philosophy of mind, and neuropsychology. He is widely considered to be one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm





And that something is "not knowledge" is also an opinion.
My hypothesis is an opinion.
So is most hypotheses and theories... all opinions.






I would not rule out the idea of a "soul" for lack of any other term for an environment of energy that might contain certain interacting elements of intelligence or consciousness. And the term "god" is meaningless to me except in terms of religion.

As I said, I don't believe in miracles. I do think that things happen that look like miracles simply because we don't understand them or have all the information about them.

I saw a magician make an elephant disappear on stage, and it certainly looked miraculous. But then, I don't believe in miracles.

There is always a logical explanation for everything.

And the things we don't understand? Just call them "metaphysical" if that works for you.

Everything just is what it is.

So that's it? You don't want to hear any more from me because you believe in miracles?

I would have never thought that of you, being such a skeptic.

I don't believe in miracles. There is a logical explanation for everything. But you are stuck now.... because you chose to believe in the miracle at some point in evolution as yet undetermined, where some organism unknown to us, went from unconscious to conscious... or some inanimate (dead) object went from dead to ... ITS ALIVE!!



Then I guess we are done here. You have your mind made up.

And I hadn't even scratched the surface or gotten to mineral consciousness, plant consciousness, proton consciousness....

Oh well.

There is a very small chance that all the atoms in the right arm of the statue David could line up and move in such a way that David appeared to be waving. Many people would use the word miracle to describe that event. I wouldn't. I'd call it a highly unusual incident.

Life 9in my opinion) is the same sort of highly unusual incident. So is consciousness.

Your arguments are good up to a point. But, then you make some huge leap into something that I don't think follows from what was said earlier. It like Depak Chopra or something.

I'll give you an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about.

As we learn more about the smallest things in the universe we are discovering that these tiny things aren't really made of anything. They're just little impulses of energy an information.

(That part is fine)

What is a thought? It's a little impulse of energy and information.

(so far so good)

Therefore, the universe is made of thought.

(and here we go off the deep end into lala land)

Gotta go. Have a good evening.

I think that is why most of today's scientists can't go much further when they are stuck on an old hypothesis that requires a miracle that they just choose to simply ignore.

That old incorrect hypothesis is, that consciousness is an emergent property.

If consciousness is an Emergent property...then it either has always existed in some degree, or there HAS TO HAVE BEEN A MIRACLE where it actually appeared.

If consciousness is an Emergent property, it either had to emerge from a tiny degree of consciousness already in existence, or there was a MIRACLE at which point it suddenly appeared, however small.

I believe there are answers to every question, and logical explanations for everything in existence, then I don’t believe in miracles.

(At least not in "miracles" without a logical cause and explanation, known or unknown.)

So I guess a "miracle" is simply an enigma that no human can explain and just makes a point to ignore.

Don't let that statement (that you don't understand anyway) shut the door to the actual subject of consciousness being in everything.

Some people insist that everything is connected, and quantum scientists go on to explore this concept. At the quantum level, we are all connected. Hence, consciousness could be a property that moves like electricity and magnetism through all things.

Anyway, nice talking to you.

Instinct says if I throw a brick at your head you will duck.

Can you choose to not duck the brick?

What if you know I am loaded financially, and cameras are rolling watching? What if you knew I had threaten to throw a brick and you were prepared to allow it to hit you in a place that wouldn't kill you?

Might you choose to not duck the brick?

As soon as one starts down the path of individual particles, and freedom of action as if the two are on the same scale the confusion begins, but when you deal just with choice, and how we make choices, it becomes clear that choice exists that instincts can be overridden and that will exists as the thing that makes it all possible.

Now explaining how this occurs is another matter entirely which IMHO is not needed to answer basic questions, and if you are not schooled in neurobiology AND computer science involving neural nets, then it would be wasted anyways.

If we were really "only robots" then punishing someone for their "crimes" would be pointless.

There would be no need for courts or judges or juries. No one is responsible for what they do, ever, because they are only "responding to stimuli or the environment with instincts that evolved over many generations.

That kind of thinking places humans at the level of animals.

We definitely have a will that is free, and allows us to grow and accept the consequences of using it.

Using your will is a lot more than making common day to day decisions. If you are using your will, then you are more empowered and self directed rather than directed by others or by your life learned programming.

NOTHING in life is free. We pay a price; in some manner; for every breath. Will for me implies one of my favorite sayings............
"INTENTION = RESULTS"

Call it will or intent; it is our basis of motivation.

There is truth to your words dear Yoda!

If you exercise your will you have to take responsibility for your actions.