Consciousness created the universe

"I'd like to dedicate this debate to all the neurons out there."My response:False. Con be like: I agree. Starfish, though brain-less, have neurons and are conscious.No need to argue anything here.I'm all:Ok, so we agree that Consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain Con be like: I argue that consciousness is exclusive to neuronsI'm all: What evidence does Con have that consciousness is exlcusive to neurons? Organisms that do not have neurons also react to external stimuli such as pain in a similiar fashions as conscious oranisms that do. Plants will excrete chemicals when they think they are being attacked. And because plants are considered life forms then we must conclude that they are aware they are under attack. Not only that but they can be fooled by playing a tape recording of an insect eating leaves and the plant will interpret this as an attack upon themselves and react accordingly. This implies that some plants are also aware of sound. They have also exhibited other signs of conscious behviour such as memorizing events. http://www.pri.org...Also, sponges are animals without neurons yet they exhibit conscious behaviour such as feeding and reproduction. Con be like: The idea of a "higher state of consciousness" just kinda whirls around in my head.Consciousness is an absolute state not subject to gradationI'm all: I agree. Either there is awareness or there is not. But if there are lifeforms without neurons which exhibit signs of consciousness then what evidence do we have to claim they are not conscious on some extremely basic level? Con be like: It could be that these yogis are decreasing their PNS sensitivity (fewer signals sent), by meditating, while maintaining or increasing CNS (brain and spinal chord) sensitivity.While the yogi's PNS sensitivity is muddled, the CNS sensitivity can still be heightened. This shows how vertebrates, yogis included, can have lowered sensitivity to the external environment, yet increased sensitivity in their consciousness.I'm all: Let's analyze what the Yogi did step by step:He compacted himself into the box - In a mindless state (this is what meditation is)He slowed his heartbeat down - Willfully yet without self-awareness And remained encapsulated underwater for 7 minutes - demonstrating signs of a complete lack of his external environment. Then when he came out of this state he claimed he was re-entering his body. Can Con give good reason for us to believe the Yogi's state of awareness never left his body and he misinterpreted what was happening to himself? Has the Yogi really been deluding himself for so long to the point where he can slow his heartbeat down, be compacted into a tiny box and be submerged underwater for 7 minutes? The Yogi demon started integrity by completing this amazing feat, is there reason without evidence to doubt his own understanding of the process which allowed him to do so? CON BE LIKE: I believe consciousness is dependent on neurons (sensory), but that removing one's sense of the external environment (PNS) does not necessarily remove one's consciousness if one is in fact a vertebrate, because the PNS could be compromised, and the CNS could still allow for consciousness.I'm all: Con must give good evidence to believe living things that lack neurons are absent of awareness even though they exhibit behaviour demonstrating awareness CON BE LIKE: "Something" is a physical concept that is best explained by physical sciences. Physically speaking, to be something, at the most basic level, something must have particles/atoms/wavelengths/energy/matter/radiation.The absence of all of these basic characteristics of "something" leaves us with "nothing."I'm all: If we were to remove everything from existence including all quantum particles and just leave empty space we wouldn't be left with nothing. So the absence of particles/atoms/wavelenghts/energy/matter/radiation isn't nothing, it's an empty area primed for existence. Therefore, empty space devoid of EVERYTHING other than itself is still something. Anything that exists is something. Empty space void of everything exists therefore it is something. The opposite of something is nothing which just so happens to mean non-existence also. Con be like: Particle physics has been observing and testing nothing for a while. The very science used to explain what something is, has discovered that nothing is a vacuum of empty space with no matter, no energy, no radiation, no particles, and no atoms, BUT there is a detectable physical field; its existence is ubiquitous.I'm all: Unfortunately this is not a state of nothingness. When discussing the conception of the universe we must analyze things in their absolute nature not what is just convenient for humans. Absolute nothingness is the absence of empty space. Con be like: You might be thinking...Hold on! A physical field would be something! A physical field can't be nothing...I know...I know it sounds contradictory, but this physical field isn't a steady state of something at all. It's empty, it's void of matter or energy, it doesn't radiate, it has no atoms or full particles, it doesn't have any wavelengths of light...nothingI'm all: That's because it is contradictory. It's like calling someone more pregnant. Either they are pregnant or they are not. Either there is nothing or there is something. Con supplies are video of Krauss discussing the Universe coming from empty space filled with quantum particles as coming from nothing. We obviously know what is wrong with this statement Bbut one thing I would like Con to explain in this video is how Dr Krauss says "empty space can just appear where there was no empty space". Can he supply evidence of this being observed? WHY THERE IS SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING:The reasons why nothing cannot not exist is because the very definition of nothingness is non-existence. Non-existence cannot exist. If there was no universe or empty space there would be nothing but to be implies being and being is existing. Non-existence existing is a logical paradox. That's why there is something because nothingness MUST not be. However, that only explains why there should be empty space. It doesn't explain why all matter/energy/quantum particles should spawn from pure empty space. If consciousness was not exclusive to neurons and not exclusive to organisms then that would explain what caused the universe. Con be like: Consciousness requires neurons, which are integral nerve cells in all nervous systems. Pro needs to demonstrate that consciousness can exist without neurons.I'm all: I've demonstrated that neuronless lifeforms still exhibit conscious behaviour. Occam's razor dictates that until Con can prove Consciousness arises from neurons we must accept that it doesn't.If consciousness were to be seperated from organisms it would be the only 1 of 2 things which are absent of everything other than themselves. This is a supicious correlation with empty space that nothing else shares. Here's a bunch of reasons to believe consciousness is non-local1) We have good reason to believe that consciousness is not an emergent property of neurons. We have NO reasons to believe that it is. 2) Nothing = non-existence. Something = existence. Therefore, anything that exists is something. Awareness exists. If it didn't exist then we wouldn't be experiencing all that is happening right now. We'd be like sophisticated robots just going through the motions as we were programmed with no awareness of what is taking place3) We've witnessed nothing in nature that exists but then ceases to exist so we must conclude all forms of existence remain to exist4) If awareness exists then it exists forever5) Argument from desire: All innate desires exist. Water, food, Partners, existence. Commonly, no creature wants to cease to exist. Therefore, it's reasonable to believe that infinite existence is attainable. If we remain aware after death and come back as another life form this will quence our desire for existence. 6) MASS AGREEMENT: Billions of people since the dawn of humanity have theorized of a immaterial realm that effects the material and results in eternal existence. If we remove all the superificial attributes of religion and spirituality to the bare minimum we are left with a force called consciousness which created the universe and allows us to exist for eternity to explore every aspect of the universe we were conceived in and connects every living organism with the universe (oneness). Billions of people say they can sense something beyond the material so this is a good reason to chuck in the PRO box7) Meditation practitioners have declared that consciousness is non-local and enabled them to leave their physical body. These same practioners have performed amazing feats such as the manipulation of their vital organs, unnatural endurance to pain (buddhists lighting themselves on fire), super human capabilities (see Wim Hof https://en.wikipedia.org...;), pro-longed starvation and other things. If all these individuals were misinterpreting their own states then how could they utilize this misinformation to perform such extreme feats? 8) Justice: If we are all one consciousness and we never leave this universe then any harm one does is ultimately done to oneself. If Hitler re-emerges on Earth then he has to live in an environment corrupted by his previous actions. This also encourages people to treat all life kindly because we could all remerge as the cow, plant or human that gets mistreated 9) Objective morality: It establishes an objective morality which gives reason as to why one should treat others with their best intentions10) Everything in the universe exists in cycles why shouldn't our individual existences? Thanks Con for your participation. You're good woman/man.