Consciousness created the universe

Thank conWe are both in agreement that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain. He then goes on to explain his position that brainless organisms are conscious but not aware of their own consciousness. I agree, however we have concluded that they are conscious on a basic level which was all that I was arguing. I did not propose that Starfish hae the capability to reflect on their actions or contemplate their existence. However, things get a little awry in Con's argument when he goes on to say starfish are machine like and are NOT aware/conscious of it's senses. This is incoherent because Con just agreed that they were aware of their senses just not self-aware of their senses. That is, the starfish doesn't have capability to acknowledge that it is eating or feeling something yet it is still aware it is eating and feeling. Then Con states that awareness originates in the nervous system. What evidence does Con have of this? I have evidence to the contrary all I need to do is point to one of many organisms that lack a nervous system yet demonstrate similar behaviour to conscious beings such as Plants and sponges. Sponges feed and reproduce, are we to assume they are not aware they are eating or releasing sperm? And plants can release offensive defense mechanisms when they think they are being attacked or memorize events in their life. Unless we have evidence that gives reason to believe plants are not aware of anything then we must conclude that like us, plants are aware, at least on a primary level not secondary level like humans; that is, they don't have the capacty to know they are aware they just are. http://www.pri.org...ARG 2The point i was making with occam's razor is that we should assume that all oragnisms which display conscious behaviour should be considered conscious. ARG 4CON: "I think my opponent has confused intentional sensory deprivation with loss of awareness"ME: No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. How can sensory deprivation lead to a higher state of consciousness if conscious is caused by the senses? My argument is that is not caused by the senses or else meditation pracitioners would become more sensitive to their environment not less. In the Video I supplied the Yogi losses awareness of his environment and elevates to different state. That's why he says he feels a cold shock as his mind re-enters his body. And like the example i used, if one were to become more sensitive to their environment then meditation should increase levels of panic in a traumatic situation not lower. A social anxiety sufferer is hyper-aware of their environment. They see and analyze every little thing that is happening around them. Every conversation within ear distance is heared attutely. This is not the same with meditation. A meditation state blocks out environmental elements. If we were to believe that meditation increases awareness of one's external envionment then an anxiety sufferer would become more paniced not less. It's like Con stated himself, the starfish is not aware it is aware, it is just aware. it's the same with medition. One does not become aware they are aware like "oo, look how deep in meditation i am" no they just are. they transcend into a state of oneness where there is no awareness of awareness there's just a state of pure awareness like the starfishARG 5I'm happy to drop the dream argument. I do not believe that sensory of ones external environment is demonstration of consciousness alone. I was simply arguing against the notion that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain for reasons such as the manipultion of ones senses to their external environment is synonomous with manipulaiton of consciousness. But Con and I both agree that consciousnes is not exclusive to the brainARG 6Happiness, sadness, anger etc... are all subjectie interpretations of chemicals. It is our consciousness that allows us to interpret these chemicals as we please. When someone is happy they are in state of awareness that good things are happening. Dopamine is a feel good chemical. However if you inject dopamine into me and i hate artificial process effecting my brain then i could be unhappy that there is a feel good chemical in my brain. Happiness is subject. Conscious causes subjectivity. Subjectivity is a state of awareness. Therefore, happiness itself is a state of awareness. The same goes for all other emotions. Anger is caused by chemicals but it's how we interpret those chemicals. Some people are happy being angry or sad. The subjective interpretation of those chemicals IS consciousness. CON: Then this argument would be just like asking how ‘happiness’, ‘sadness’, and ‘anger’ seem to appear at some time and disappear after some.Emotions are caused by chemicals. The chemical itself never disappears after anytime it just changes or is replaced with a new chemical and whatever new chemical that is can be interpreted as happy or sad or unhappy. Happiness is just a state of awareness. This is why a computer cannot actually be "happy" even if a message on the screen says it is. So happiness and unhappiness are just different reconfigurations of someone's awareness. When you are happy you have decided to be aware that positive things are happening. This is why veteran meditation practitioners say they reach a state of bliss in a deep meditation. Nothing that comes into existence in the universe ceases to exist at any stage. it just reconfigures itself. When a human dies, everything that is the human (atoms and energy) doesn't just stop existing it disperses into the environment. So nothing has actually left existence. Now, we could argue whether happiness is just the absence of unhappiness and therefore when one let's go of there material existence (meditation) they reach a state of pure happiness/bliss. But I'm intending to prove at this point is that subjective emotions like happiness or unhappiness caused by anger, sadness or grief chemicals don't disappear they just re-arrange themselves into another stateIt is awareness itself that permits this interpretation of chemicals. And when one is alive, awareness remains until death. But where does it go after death? is it the only thing in nature which comes into being then ceases to exist?ARG 7COn: You could say that Pure Happiness : Absence of everything other than itself. Existing as happiness but consisting of nothing.ME: How can one be happy if they are not aware of their happiness? happiness still requires awareness for it to exist. Awareness does not require any state. It can be completely neutral. If a computer says "i'm happy" we know that it is not actually happy because it isn't aware. Con must show how happiness, anger, grief etc... can exist independently of awareness. He must show how one can be happy but no awareness of happiness. Happiness can't just be. Awareness and empty space are the only 2 things that can just be. CON: Moreover, when my opponent says empty space, he has to clarify. It cannot be the empty space we currently observe as according to the current theories, if anything existed prior big bang, it is ‘the bulk’, a hyper-dimensional hypothetical space, very much unlike our four-dimensional empty fabric of space-time.ME: Empty space is an area devoid of everything other than itself. The first thing to exist HAD to be pure empty space. before you can add energy or matter to existence it requires empty space to exist in first. We know what causes empty space to exist -- logic; nothingness cannot exist by it's very definition so something MUST exist always. by why must that something be a quatum particle? Why couldn't that something just remain to be an empty area? My argument is that it's because the only thing which shares a likeness to empty space is or was co-existing with empty space at this time -- consciousness ARG 8Con finalizes by reiterating his claim that happiness, grief and anger can exist of nothing but themselves. I've already addressed this as saying that without awareness happiness, grief and anger are just chemicals, they don't mean anything. Awareness is the basis of all subjectivity. Con must give an example of something that can be absent of everything, including awareness, other than itself and still exist. So far, all my points stand. We have no valid mechanisms for consciousness occuring in life yet it's still there. we have no other concept that shares the exact same traits as empty space except consciousness so it's reasonable they exist mutually. We have plausible reason for what caused quantum particles to exist so it's reasonable to assume that whatever caused them existed within empty space. consciousness shares a likeness with empty space so it's reasonable to assume that consciousness caused the first ever form of energy/matter