There is no soul and no afterlife.

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by Canute
Panpsychism is not anthropomorphic, that is fairly obvious if you consider it. Anyway whether it is or not hardly does not affect its likelyhood in any way.

I disagree that it is not anthropomorphic. Anthropomorphism means ascribing human attributes (e.g., consciousness) to non-human things (e.g., the sustaining force of the universe). Since consciousness results from a complex array of synapses and interacting neurons in our brains, I think that the assertion that the rest of the universe is dependent on these interactions is indeed quite unlikely.

You're right, it does indicate that. But it doesn't prove it, it is not inevitably true. If you take a brick out of a wall the wall keeps right on standing. That does not mean the wall is not made of bricks.

Nice analogy. However, we know that the wall is made of bricks. We don't know that the universe is made of consciousness, and in fact have no reason to believe that it is, whereas we have good reason to believe that it is not.

Sorry but I can't find my way back to the what I said. Can you remind me.

You said that there a number of reasons for believing that once conscious beings become extinct, so too will all stars, black holes, and dark matter. What are some of these reasons?

If one supposes that there is nothing else except the 'conscious elite' then there is no elite.

I meant "elite" with respect to non-conscious life and matter.

It is the phsyicalists who are guilty of elitism, by considering the intellect as the measure of superiority.

We rely on our intellect combined with our observations to determine the nature of reality. If we assume that our intellect is useless in helping to determine the nature of reality, then we are reduced to nihilism and it doesn't matter anyway. But if our intellect is useful in determining the nature of reality, then I would argue that the empirical nature of science is more useful than the speculations of philosophy in achieving that end.

 

[VitalOne]

To VitalOne: I have to admit, the "evidence" presented in those links is very interesting and seems to have been pursued in a scientific manner. Unfortunately, the only real evidence I read about was the similar handwriting, all the rest sounded like hearsay at best. What I'm curious about is whether a child's handwriting is as unique as an adult's. If so, then you have very compelling case to be made, but then again there is much more compelling evidence that Bigfoot exists or that aliens have visited. I would love to believe that aliens are visiting and that Bigfoot does exist, but until a Sasquatch is captured or an alien is on the news, I'll still have my reservations. The same goes for this reincarnation theory.

I agree, I am not 100% confident in reincarnation is true either.

Of course, I totaly bought into a story I saw on the discovery channel about a real life zombie that was proven false. They showed this man who an entire town swore dies, was buried, and then came back due to being drugged with the Japanese Puffer fish's poison. Eventually, it was realized that the man was lying and his grieving family bought into it. I think the same thing is happening with the reincarnated boy. Oh well, it's still fun to read about. Keep it coming!

I don't really think this is what happened with the reincarnation boy simply because he started claiming he was a man who wasn't famous, who his parents didn't know at 2 years old. He knew details that the man knew (that could not be found in books or articles), he knew english before he learned it.

Because personal accounts, even first hand, are not scientific evidence. For something to count as science it must be consistently repeatable. It is not enough that one person, or even many people, claims that some phenomena happened that phenomena must be duplicatable, testable, and the explanatory theory must falsifiable; otherwise it's simply not science.

There's handwriting comparisions, birthmarks, and details that the children could not know.

Further, the preponderance of what is being taken as 'evidence' here comes from hypnotic past life regression. A technique that is notoriously faulty and even sometimes harmful as victims generate false memories that are sometimes psychologically damaging.

NONE of the children went through any type of hypnotic past life regression. It has already been proven that that can create false memories.

Finally, the conclusion is being assumed in these cases. Alternative explanations (even supernatural ones) are not even considered, much less explored or refuted. It is quite simply, not up to the standards of scientific rigor. It is not science.

I'm wondering, what way using science can they prove this true or false? Or is this just too untestable?

 

[VitalOne]

What arrogance! I refer to a quotation from atheroy from a different thread that seems appropriate here. I've replaced the original subject of "gravity" with "physical reality", but it still fits nicely in this situation.

The Brain stems sends signals to the brain, the brain then tries to make sense of them thus it turns into reality.

If you want my whole reality theory you have to go to the eastern philosophy section. But basically it says, since there are billions that have the same senses, it seems that if 1 dies reality still exist, because the other person is still alive, still percieving those signals. But if everyone was blind, deaf, and paralyzed, what we percieve as reality would not exist. Again, are dreams real? They seem real, but like this reality they're not.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by VitalOne
There's handwriting comparisions, birthmarks, and details that the children could not know.

I'm not sure how birthmarks would be in any way significant. Handwriting analysis could be suggestive if performed by independent experts. Other information could also be suggestive depending upon the detail and accuracy (saying that the person had a dog in a past life would not be impressive, saying that one had a golden retriever named Beatrice that was lame in the left hind leg and died when hit by a car on Oct. 2 1952 would). Again, independent verification would be critical, the details recorded by one person and investigated by another with no information getting back to anyone who knows the child. I don't see any of this in my admittedly quick scan of Dr. Stevenson's site. Nor did I see any real data or details of investigation. Nor anything but a quick dismissal of alternative explanations, reincarnation was simply concluded. What I did see was lots of personal accounts... which, once again, do not stand up to scientific rigor.

NONE of the children went through any type of hypnotic past life regression. It has already been proven that that can create false memories.

Children are notoriously suggestible even without hypnotherapy. Children are also typically very bright and perceptive and desiring to please. There are even more cases of 'false memory syndrome' amongst un-hypnotized children than there are in hypnotized adults.

There are quite some number of 'child abuse' investigations where this has become devastatingly apparent. Looking for abuse to have occurred, the 'investigator' asks the children questions. In their quest to please the children hit upon which answers elicit the most response.

In one particular case several members of a family that ran a day-care were actually incarcerated. However as time went on the children's' stories grew increasingly bizarre until they past the point of believability. At which time proper psychological, forensic, and evidential investigations found that no abuse what-so-ever had been committed.

Dr. Stevenson is very likely hitting upon the same phenomena. Looking for evidence of reincarnation he finds it in the tales that children tell to please him.

I'm wondering, what way using science can they prove this true or false? Or is this just too untestable?

It could be testable. I'm just not seeing anything that I would consider scientific thus far.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
I don't agree with your example, it still begs the question of how something can come from nothing. You cannot give a strictly physicalist account of the universe a beginning, as you do here. It isn't possible.

If time is bound to the inception of the Universe in such a way then causation as we would typically think of it does not exist. The phrase 'comes from' would have no meaning. All we could say is that the Universe happened. How, would be meaningless, and perhaps is.

It is generally accepted that the safest definition of consciousness is 'what it is like to be' after Nagel. Some people prefer 'experience' or 'being' or some such but they all amount to the same thing.

A rock or a plant has being but do they have consciousness? I would say that awareness and, in particular, self-awareness are critical. But then we can build computers that have some small measure of both of these qualities, so are computers (properly programmed and equipped) then to some degree conscious?

~Raithere

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
I disagree that it is not anthropomorphic. Anthropomorphism means ascribing human attributes (e.g., consciousness) to non-human things (e.g., the sustaining force of the universe).

If you look at what you've said here you'll see that it is you who is calling consciousness a human attribute and being anthropomorphic. Panpsychism says consciousness is a fundamental property of matter, not something unique to human beings.

[Since consciousness results from a complex array of synapses and interacting neurons in our brains, I think that the assertion that the rest of the universe is dependent on these interactions is indeed quite unlikely.[/B]

Nobody has the faintest idea what causes consciousness. Ordinary human consciousness is clearly to a large extent the result of brain activity, however the argument that consciousness can arise from matter is not easy to make, and is certainly not proved. This is something that simply isn't known, despite considerable serious research.

[Nice analogy. However, we know that the wall is made of bricks. We don't know that the universe is made of consciousness, and in fact have no reason to believe that it is, whereas we have good reason to believe that it is not.[/B]

We disagree about the reasons for believing one thing or the other. No rational proof of either case exists and there are reasons for believing either.

[You said that there a number of reasons for believing that once conscious beings become extinct, so too will all stars, black holes, and dark matter. What are some of these reasons?[/B]

I could give many examples but I'll start with this one. Many philosphers (current and dead) conclude, for logical reasons, that the world is built on something ontologically monist. Monism allows a complete explanation of existence to be constructed, whereas dualism does not (it leads to an infinite regression of substances or causes). This does not prove anything in itself but it's very suggestive. As consciousness is the only monist substance of which we know there is circumstantial evidence that it is fundamental.

[I meant "elite" with respect to non-conscious life and matter.[/B]

What non-conscious life and matter? Panpsychism asserts that everything is made out consciousness.

[We rely on our intellect combined with our observations to determine the nature of reality. If we assume that our intellect is useless in helping to determine the nature of reality, then we are reduced to nihilism and it doesn't matter anyway. But if our intellect is useful in determining the nature of reality, then I would argue that the empirical nature of science is more useful than the speculations of philosophy in achieving that end. [/B]

Many would agree, and many others wouldn't. As Nietzsche and Plato and Popper and others have pointed out, science studies the shadows, not the real thing. I agree that academic western philosophy has become enmeshed in contradictions and undecidables, but there are better ways of philosophising than that. Science is undoubtedly good at explaining the world as it appears to our senses. Philosophy, esp. metaphysics and ontology, tries to get at the real things that cause and experience those sensations.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
If time is bound to the inception of the Universe in such a way then causation as we would typically think of it does not exist. The phrase 'comes from' would have no meaning. All we could say is that the Universe happened. How, would be meaningless, and perhaps is.

Perhaps so. Advaita-ist philosophers say time is a dual concept and thus ultimately an illusion, or at least not ontologically fundamental. I haven't quite figured that one out yet. Whatever the truth about that your comment here doesn't seem to imply anything about the relationship between consciousness and matter.

[A rock or a plant has being but do they have consciousness? I would say that awareness and, in particular, self-awareness are critical. But then we can build computers that have some small measure of both of these qualities, so are computers (properly programmed and equipped) then to some degree conscious?

~Raithere [/B]

The issue of machine consciousness is a muddle. If you're interested I recently wrote a long article debunking some of the current scientific thinking on the issue. (It was written in response to a number of articles published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies by people working on computer consciousness). There is no certainly no evidence at all that computers ever will have even the slightest degree of 'what it is like to be'.

It's interesting that you say a rock and a plant have being. I don't know what this can mean unless it means that they have consciousness. Do you mean that you think they are conscious but not self-aware?

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
The issue of machine consciousness is a muddle. If you're interested I recently wrote a long article debunking some of the current scientific thinking on the issue.

Sure.

There is no certainly no evidence at all that computers ever will have even the slightest degree of 'what it is like to be'.

Again, that depends upon how we define consciousness.

It's interesting that you say a rock and a plant have being. I don't know what this can mean unless it means that they have consciousness. Do you mean that you think they are conscious but not self-aware?

No, I mean being as in having existence or being real.

~Raithere

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
Sure.

Not sure what you mean by that. It's too long to post but I'll I'll send it direct if you want. Don't feel obliged, it's a bit long and tedious (I was trying to close a lot of loopholes). It's relevant to the discussion but it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Again, that depends upon how we define consciousness./B]

I carefully didn't say consciousness, I used 'what it is like', the mimimal defintion of it.

[No, I mean being as in having existence or being real.
~Raithere [/B]

Ok.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
Not sure what you mean by that. It's too long to post but I'll I'll send it direct if you want.

PM it to me if you like. Otherwise, you could post portions that you think are relevant to this discussion.

I carefully didn't say consciousness, I used 'what it is like', the mimimal defintion of it.

Okay, I get you. You're saying that consciousness is to experience being or the experience of being. But I think this kind of begs the question. A rock or a plant have being but we assume they don't experience being. But we assume this because they don't appear to have consciousness or a mechanism to provide consciousness. So all we're providing is that consciousness is that which make certain things capable of experiencing being.

But again, at what level is this consciousness? I can write a program that experience its own functioning and can even alter its functioning, yet this is not considered consciousness. An ant can be seen to experience being, in so far as it is aware of itself in relation to other things. Where is the critical difference?

~Raithere

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
PM it to me if you like. Otherwise, you could post portions that you think are relevant to this discussion.

It's attached. You can decide how much of it you want to read. It doesn't prove anything, it just clarifies some of what I'm trying to say here.

[Okay, I get you. You're saying that consciousness is to experience being or the experience of being. But I think this kind of begs the question. A rock or a plant have being but we assume they don't experience being. But we assume this because they don't appear to have consciousness or a mechanism to provide consciousness. So all we're providing is that consciousness is that which make certain things capable of experiencing being. [/B]

Roughly yes, but it's not quite how I'd put it. I would say that consciousness does not enable experience, but rather that consciousness IS experience. This is not a trivial change - it suggests that the mechanism is the thing, that the self-reference is total and that no physical mechanism is required for minimal experience. That is to say that while brains cause states of consciousness they do not cause consciousness to exist, for it can exist in the absence of brains, albeit in very different states to the normal human experience of it.

The idea is implausible, in fact quite absurd in some ways, but there is no evidence against it, and it has very respectable supporters. I've spent a long time trying to work out why it cannot be true but have failed so far. In fact it seems to explain many things that physicalism cannot. I should rush to add that this isn't an anti-science argument, it's a 'science ought to be different' argument.

[But again, at what level is this consciousness? I can write a program that experience its own functioning and can even alter its functioning, yet this is not considered consciousness.[/B]

I must disagree. You can write a program that is functionally self-referential, but not one that experiences anything.

An ant can be seen to experience being, in so far as it is aware of itself in relation to other things. Where is the critical difference? [/B]

The idea that an ant is conscious is generally considered, (or rather derided as), folk-psychology. There is not a shred of proof of it. I think it's common sense that they're conscious, but then I'm just one of those 'folk'.

The fact is that we cannot prove the existence of consciousness. I feel that this is one of the most important facts of which we know, but it is treated as trivial. There seems to be something that exists which cannot be proved to exist. (See my article for examples of the illogical nonsense that is written to overcome this problem now that science has started to explore the paradoxes that arise). This is why it has generally been a taboo topic in science until very recently.

Believing in consciousness is an act of faith. Most people are happy to believe that the states of consciousness which they themselves experience do exist, for how could they not? However people often deny extreme cases, as in 'bliss' or 'emptiness'. However if we grant Buddhists the same ability to 'know' their own experience as we do ourselves then there are states of consciousness that, as experienced, are no more than a very convincing experience of nothingness.

To cut along story short this seems to fit rather nicely with the idea that consciousness, in its 'rest' state if you like, IS nothingness (and perhaps equivalently 'bliss'). I've caught enough glimpses of this state to believe it exists, whatever it means.

This leads to the speculation de that there is 'something that is like' to be nothing. If so then this nothing/experience must inevitably exist, (since this 'what it is like' is the limit case). I like this idea because it explains why anything exists at all when common sense suggests that nothing should exist. The existence of consciousness is inevitable in this scenario, it cannot not exist.

This seems to me to be a more elegant solution to the existence of existence than the idea that 'extension' has always existed but that there is no rational explanation for why it should have done so.

I suppose it could be just substance abuse but this makes sense to me. It explains many odd things about the world. Any holes in the logic so far?

(Don't let me bore you but I do find this a useful discussion- most people seem to think that these issues are solved and not worth discussing).

 

[Canute]

Whoops - forgot the file.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
It's attached. You can decide how much of it you want to read. It doesn't prove anything, it just clarifies some of what I'm trying to say here.

Thanks, I'm about halfway done with it and will continue later on. Though I do find the consciousness discussion interesting I'd like to try to get back closer to the topic. Perhaps we can take up consciousness itself in a new thread so as not to entirely derail this one.

This is not a trivial change - it suggests that the mechanism is the thing, that the self-reference is total and that no physical mechanism is required for minimal experience.
...
This leads to the speculation de that there is 'something that is like' to be nothing. If so then this nothing/experience must inevitably exist, (since this 'what it is like' is the limit case). I like this idea because it explains why anything exists at all when common sense suggests that nothing should exist. The existence of consciousness is inevitable in this scenario, it cannot not exist.

This seems to me to be a more elegant solution to the existence of existence than the idea that 'extension' has always existed but that there is no rational explanation for why it should have done so.

Good enough, but it does bring to mind one of the problems I find with the existence from consciousness hypothesis. Specifically, were still stuck with the something from nothing conundrum as one must now account for the conscious creation of concepts out of nothing. If consciousness at its initial state is the experience of nothing by what mechanism can we account for the creation of the experience of something? Either way we're still dealing with creation ex nihilo. I don't see that the problem is resolved, only transferred from the physical realm to the mental realm (a dualism that I don't necessarily agree with in the first place).

~Raithere

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Raithere
If consciousness at its initial state is the experience of nothing by what mechanism can we account for the creation of the experience of something? Either way we're still dealing with creation ex nihilo.

'experience of nothing' state is a description in terms of our reality. there is no need for an absolute initial state of consciousness. states of consciousness transcends the realities is the argument of non-physicalists.

as for the realities let me indulge now. if we have only x-ray vision our reality will be quite different. the universe will not be a colorful one, for simple example. that does not mean that universe does not have colors. but it would sound like a fantacy as we would not have an iota of idea what is colorful. observation of the light frequencies are not going to tell what a color is. in short, our realities (in this case visual aspect of the universe) are defined / confined by our ability.

there is no physical means to prove / detect consciousness, objectively, is again the problem here.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
Thanks, I'm about halfway done with it and will continue later on. Though I do find the consciousness discussion interesting I'd like to try to get back closer to the topic. Perhaps we can take up consciousness itself in a new thread so as not to entirely derail this one.

Good idea. Philosophy, cosmology or pseudo-science I wonder?

[Good enough, but it does bring to mind one of the problems I find with the existence from consciousness hypothesis. Specifically, were still stuck with the something from nothing conundrum as one must now account for the conscious creation of concepts out of nothing. If consciousness at its initial state is the experience of nothing by what mechanism can we account for the creation of the experience of something? Either way we're still dealing with creation ex nihilo. I don't see that the problem is resolved, only transferred from the physical realm to the mental realm (a dualism that I don't necessarily agree with in the first place).

~Raithere [/B]

I don't have answers to this. I have no problem with the idea that consciousness is inevitable, but as to how the rest arises I only have a few vague thoughts. One part of the hypothesis is very important however, that it not based on dualism. It is the explanation of it that is unavoidably dual, but not the explandum itself.

I'll leave the rest for a new thread. I suspect that if I post the topic publicly it will quickly descend into religious and neuroscientific mayhem, but I'll go ahead post something in Philosophy and see. Bye for now.

 

[wayne_92587]

Babeling-on

Originally posted by Canute
The idea that an ant is conscious is generally considered, (or rather derided as), folk-psychology. There is not a shred of proof of it. I think it's common sense that they're conscious, but then I'm just one of those 'folk'.

Believing in consciousness is an act of faith. Most people are happy to believe that the states of consciousness which they themselves experience do exist, for how could they not? However people often deny extreme cases, as in 'bliss' or 'emptiness'. However if we grant Buddhists the same ability to 'know' their own experience as we do ourselves then there are states of consciousness that, as experienced, are no more than a very convincing experience of nothingness.

Consciousness, to be sensitive to, aware of, to respond to the Material World of Reality? What of the Reality that exists beyond the Material World?

Consciousness, to be aware of, to be sensitive to, to have Knowledge of, to know, to respond to, to be one with Reality.

When you speak of Consciousness are you referring to the Consciousness of the Mortal Soul or the Immortal Soul.

Immortal Souls are Conscious on a higher level than are mere Mortal, Material, Physical Souls.

Ants and even rocks, all Physical BE-ings animate or inanimate are conscious in the sense that they are sensitive to the Material World of Reality.

The problem with understanding Consciousness it that the Language that we use to speak of many Realities is just so much Babel, a confused mixture of sounds or voices, scenes of noise and confusion, creating, tumult, turmoil, uproar, bedlam, clamor.

The Duality, the differentiation, the multiplicity of definitions given to Words creates confusion.

Nothingness, Emptiness, the Great Void, is and is not defined as meaning non-existence.

Nothingness, the Space-Time Continuum, Man’s Free Will, is a Reality that exists beyond the Material, the Three Dimensional World of Reality.

The World of Reality from the point of view of Man’s Mortal, Animal Soul, Consciousness, the Consciousness of the Flesh, the Five Senses, is Two Dimensional, One Sided.

As far as the Consciousness of the flesh, Man’s mortal Soul is concerned the Earth is flat.

According to some old Hermetic fragments Man’s Mortal soul is sensible and his Immortal Soul is rational.

What is Consciousness, what is the source of knowledge.
How is Consciousness to be defined, depends on whether you are a Rationalist or an Imperialist.

To the Rationalist the Knowledge of Reality, consciousness, Reality is an Illusion, an Illusion is a Reality.

The Empiricist rejects the Reality, the Illusions, of the Rationalist.

The ant and even a rock is conscious of, sensitive to but does not respond to the Material World of Reality of its own Free Will.

The Chaos of cause and effect, Evolution, the survival of the fittest, might is right, determines the response of all Physical, Material Realities.

In Order to understand the Reality of Man’s Consciousness you must understand the Reality of Free Will, the Reality of First Cause.


Man is less but more than a mere animal that is conscious purely on a Physical Level. Man is conscious on two levels.

Material, Physcial, Realities at any given moment of time in space are completely fulfilled in the sense that in order for a Material Reality that is ever-changing to exist it must it be fixed, absolute, for moment in Time and Space.

Man’s Spiritual Reality, Consciousness, Free Spirit, the Immortal Soul, Free Will, Creative Imagination, is not bound by the Chaos of the Material World of Reality.

Spiritual Realities are boundless, the potential of their Reality Infinite, without form, shape, design, definition, Free, without dimension.

Man is Conscious on Two levels

1. The Consciousness of the Flesh, the Five Senses, which is sensitive to the Material World of Reality.

2. Consciousness, on a Non-material, Non-Physical Level, a Spiritual Level, is sensitive to Realities that exist beyond the Material, Physical, World of Reality, the World of Illusion, Magic, divine Reality, the Reality of the Creative Imagination.

The consciousness of the Flesh, the five senses are conscious, aware, of and respond to the Physical, Material World of Reality, but not of their own Free Will.

Man's Second level of Consciousness Man's sixth sense, the creative imagination is sensitive not only to the Material World of Reality it is also sensitive to Realties that exist beyond the Material World of Reality, the Potentiality of Reality, the Reality of Nothing, Reality which a this present moment of Time in Space does not Exist, Realities that exist without existing, that exist but not as a Material Reality, Illusions of Reality.

Nothingness, Emptiness, the Great Void is not something that does not exist. Emptiness, Nothingness, is a Reality that exists it just does not exist as a Material Reality.

Now how in the hell to you give a name to, speak of, a Reality that has no physical Substance, that is ineffable.

Instead of asking what is consciousness the question should be, is Man a mere animal that is only conscious of the Material World of Reality as are the ant and the rock?

Christ, Buddha, Consciousness, is the breath, the nature, the Spiritual Reality of First Cause that was breathed into Man’s nostrils making God’s Will, the Reality of First Cause, Free Will, a manifest Physical Reality, a living Soul, Man’s Immortal Soul, the Spirit of God made manifest, alive in the Flesh.

Christ, Buddha, Consciousness, Freedom of Mind, Freedom of spirit, Free Will, the Spiritual Reality of First Cause, the Creative Imagination is Boundlessness, without limits, without dimension, Infinite, is a Superior level of Consciousness, a Supreme BE-ing that is not Bound to the Chaos of the material World of Reality.

Consciousness, Freedom of Mind, Free Will because it does not exist as a material Reality, because it is spiritual, the Reality of First Cause, it exists as the World of Illusion, is ineffable, will always remain on the tip of the Tongue, unspoken of.

Man’s Consciousness, if Two, the Material and the Non-Material, are made One, is a Continuum, Four Dimensional, is superior to that of an ant or a rock.

Consciousness is the Space-Time Continuum.

 

[Cris]

Wayne,

Do you believe any of what you posted or were you simply listing various definitions for our consideration?

 

[Canute]

Re: Babeling-on

Originally posted by wayne_92587
[Man’s Consciousness, if Two, the Material and the Non-Material, are made One, is a Continuum, Four Dimensional, is superior to that of an ant or a rock.

Consciousness is the Space-Time Continuum. [/B]

I agree with a lot of what you said, especially this 4D thing, although I have to say I found it a very confusing way of saying it.

Why is Man's consciousness superior to that of an ant's? The idea contradicts the rest of your opinions. You cannot be panpsychist and play favourites.

 

[Cris]

Consciousness

I believe these statements were originally made by Raithere but I find them particularly relevant here.

Consciousness seems to be a self-affecting condition of internal and external isomorphism (awareness of self and the external world) within a neural network.

Consciousness is a gestalt experience that occurs beyond a particular threshold of escalating complexity and interaction.

 

[Raithere]

Re: Babeling-on

wayne_92587:

Wow... all those assertions and not a stitch of evidence or a hint of logic. Are we just to assume you're correct or do you actually want to attempt to validate any of that?

~Raithere