Consciousness created the universe

Pro, I loved the "con be like...I'm all" stuff, really funny. Thanks again for this debate, it is an interesting topic. Pro posits: "What evidence does Con have that consciousness is [exclusive] to neurons?" Well, all of our accumulated knowledge of neurobiology indicates that consciousness is dependent on neural substrates; neural substrates have neurons. The University of Cambridge went as far as to make a "Declaration on Consciousness" which categorizes non-human animals as conscious, because they have neurons. According to cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists at Cambridge University, "The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds...also possess these neurological substrates." http://fcmconference.org... So, my proof that consciousness is exclusive to organisms with neurons is supported by evidence in the field of neurobiology--thanks Cambridge--indicating that neural substrates (neurons) are necessary for consciousness. Pro also claims that "Organisms that do not have neurons also react to external stimuli such as pain in [similar] fashions as conscious [organisms] that do. Plants will excrete chemicals when they think they are being attacked." My response: Well, the plants are in fact reacting; these reactions are called tropisms. Tropisms are the movements of plants in response to stimulus. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... So plants can move in response to light, gravity, touch, and chemicals thanks to tropisms. This might seem similar to conscious organisms reacting to things however, unlike conscious reactions, tropic responses (plant movements) result from differential growth in the plant. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Growth, therefore reactive movement, in plants is done by cell division, and if Pro wishes to claim that cell division is done consciously, that would be awesome...and incorrect. Plants' movements to stimuli, tropisms, are not conscious, because cell division is not conscious or consciously controlled. Plants do not act on their senses, they simply passively react to stimulus. Their cells divide to move them closer to/further from the detected stimulus; plants cannot intend to react; they have to. A starfish, conversely, can intentionally, with their neurons, act on received stimulus in many different ways, without unconscious cell division. A starfish could be affected by a stimulus and intend, not cell divide, to avoid it. Either way, the evidence points to consciousness being exclusive to organisms (I argue only animals), and quantum fluctuations are not organisms. Therefore, quantum fluctuations are not conscious. The universe that resulted from these fluctuations is therefore not from consciousness. The idea that consciousness is non-local is contrary to the evidence that consciousness is exclusive to neural substrates. I maintain my rejection of the resolution. As for the Yogi, lowering your metabolic rate, through meditation as it were, is a conscious way to increase how long you can hold your breath. Lowering metabolic rate reduces the need for as much oxygen. Given the new techniques by free divers, who dive consciously and aware of their surroundings, a human can hold their breath up to 15 minutes. http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org... Meditation is not mindless, and I argue that you can't do anything mindlessly. As long as you are doing something, you are using your mind. Flexibility, also does not require "being mindless." I agree what the Yogi did was amazing, but it was not void of consciousness or indicative of no self-awareness. Pro asks: "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?" My response: Yes, state of awareness doesn't leave your body ever. In fact, state of awareness has no agency and therefore cannot leave. I further believe that the Yogi has been deluding himself, because he is unaware of the inner workings of his neurology, nervous system, and consciousness. He could "feel" like he is re-entering his body, but I must be blatant here...did you see him leave his body? No? That's because he didn't leave his body. In fact, I argue, one would need one's body to leave; the paradox of him leaving his body should be obvious. Yeah, the process that allowed him to do these things, lowering metabolic rate, is understood by science, and it could be that the yogi lacks this scientific understanding even though he is quite good at utilizing the ability to lower his metabolic rate.. I've been a stellar driver, no accidents, for 15 years...I don't know the first thing about my car's engine's inner workings...actually I don't really know much about any of my car's inner workings at all. On to nothing... Ok, so Pro misunderstood my explanation of nothing. Let me be clear. Space requires a particle to exist, not the other way around. In the quantum fluctuations, pre big bang, there was no space...except for when the subatomic particles popped into existence and simultaneously were annihilated. For that quick existence of the subatomic particle, space is present, and, just like the particle on which it is contingent, then just as quickly not present. Space and time fluctuate with the subatomic particles. However, pre big bang, where there were no stative particles, there was no space. When I mentioned particle physicists discovering that nothing is a vacuum of empty space, it was implied that this discovery was done post big bang. Post big bang, we have matter, and so we can have empty space in which to detect these quantum fluctuations. But pre big bang, there is no matter [+0, -0], and the subatomic particles that fluctuate in and out of existence are not preceded by space; space is only the position of matter or the distance between matter. Without stative matter, there is no space or time. Also claiming that we need to analyze things in their absolute state highlights the misunderstanding of fluctuations. They are not absolute states...they exist and don't exist at the same time, and space and time are variables that are contingent on these fluctuations as well. Nothing about a quantum field, which tells us a lot about our universe's origins, speaks to anything absolute. Space-time needs particles, it cannot exist on its own as Pro claims. Pre particles, there is no space. Pro claims: "Absolute nothingness is the absence of empty space." My response: Yes, the absence of empty space, pre big bang, is quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations have no space, no matter, no energy, no wavelengths, no stative particles, no light, no radiation, no gravity, no laws...nothing. The fact that these subatomic particles exist and don't exist simultaneously doesn't allow for an "absolute" view of our universe's origins or space itself. Space needs a particle to be. Pro's reference to my idea of "more pregnant" as a critique of particle physicists' definition of nothing ignores that while pregnancy is an absolute state, quantum fluctuations are definitely not absolute states. The subatomic particles exist and don't exist...not so absolute. Finally, Pro requests: "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." My response: Again, we know quantum fluctuations are unstable and lead to the expression of positive energy, because of our discovery of them in empty space. Now, we have empty space, because we have matter. If you have matter you have space. Pre big bang quantum fluctuations have no matter; there is no matter anywhere, so there is no space anywhere. What Krauss is saying is that because space is a fluctuating variable along with these quantum fluctuations, since matter can come from [+0, -0], so can space. There is no "nothing" as Pro describes...there are ALWAYS quantum fluctuations. So when one posits absolute nothing, they can only be talking about quantum fluctuations; there is no nothing without them. To conclude: 1. Cambridge University scientists give valid reasons for consciousness being an emergent property of neurons in animals. 2. Nothing = quantum fluctuations. Our universe was expressed from these quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations lead to matter and space. [+0, -0]-->[+1,-1] Quantum fluctuations lack neural substrates, and are therefore not conscious. Therefore, our universe was not expressed by consciousness. 3. We HAVE witnessed things in the natural universe that exist and don't exist, and they are subatomic particles in quantum fluctuations. 4. Awareness is contingent on neural substrates and therefore not eternal. 5. Mediation people are lowering their metabolic rate and are becoming increasingly better at breathing techniques. This is not superhuman, it's just impressive. *Pro has failed to meet their burden of proof that consciousness is not-local, because neural substrates are local. *Pro has not linked this non-locality to the "creation" (expression) of our universe, quantum fluctuations, and therefore has not met the burden of proof for the resolution that "consciousness created the universe."