RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 4:16 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 28, 2012 at 3:38 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: [...]what I mean is that A to B change is complex to a great degree.Imagine the least complex kind of consciousness. Not the least complex consciousness in this universe plausible but rather the least complex consciousness possible. That may not be so complicated. Just because science cannot detect consciousness doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that it doesn't exist scientifically. If science one day became omniscient perhaps it would know that even a single neuron is conscious but in some extremely limited way then - but certainly not now - understood. It would of course be completely unable to feel or understand anything, but it would, perhaps, be in some extremely limited sense "aware". Science today can't detect this, but that doesn't mean it isn't so. Science can't determine quantum physics, it can only make accurate predictions, that doesn't mean it isn't philosophically a deterministic universe, it just means that, at least for the moment, it isn't scientifically a deterministic universe. It depends how you define "consciousness". Are neurons each conscious in the same way "we" are? Certainly not. But surely you're not expecting the first example of consciousness in the universe to be as conscious as us anyway. I don't know what such a reduced level of consciousness would even mean, you tell me: What do you mean by conscious at the most basic level possible?
Quote:If you go spiritually, maybe natives are right, maybe everything has consciousness. All atoms, our clothes, etc.
If everything had consciousness then you'd definitely have to be very clear about what you meant by "conscious". I get the feeling that it then either results in loses its meaning entirely or it results in absurdities such as the notion of everything being as conscious as animal/human life.
