Consciousness created the universe

Thanks ConI'd like to dedicate this debate to all the starfish out there. Awareness of one's existence does not mean to contemplate one's own existence. One can merely feel that they exist. Therefore, a computer is not aware of it's own existence; A Camel is aware of it's own existence along with awareness of pleasure, pain and other things. This is what seperates simple life from sophisticated non-life. My first step to prove that consciousness created the universe is to disprove the notion that consciousness is exclusive to the brain1) consciousness is independent of the brainIf consciousness is exclusive to the brain then that means that starfish are not conscious. Which means even though a starfish hunts for food it is NOT aware that is actually eating or satiated. It's simply a mechanical thing which operates by triggers; like a clock. Which means any damage I inflict upon a starfish is not actually felt by the starfish. The starfish is merely reacting as it is programmed to. The same as if I were to abuse a computer and the computer would try to desperately repair itself. The computer is not aware of it's destruction it is merely operating as to how it was programmed. This means that I could slice the limbs off of a starfish or burn it alive and even though it struggles to free itself, it is not actually aware of the pain or torture it is enduring i.e it is not conscious because it has no brain. I could bath the starfish in hyrdoclauric acid and that would be fine. It would be like bathing my Xbox in hydroclauric acid. This does not make sense. There is no reason to believe that a thing goes from "mechanical" to "living" at the presence of a brain. It makes more sense that a creature that acts fundementally as humans do - it avoids pain and pursues pleasure - shares the same fundamental attribute; awareness. Clocks and computers do not share this fundamental attribute. This is what seperates living from non-living. To say that Starfish, contrary to their obvious behaviour, are not aware of any damage being inlficted upon them goes against common sense. This is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extarordinary evidence. It makes more sense to believe that starfish on a very basic level have awarenesss. If they are aware they are conscious. If they are conscious without a brain then consciousness is not exclusive to the brain. 2) Manipulation of consciousness One may assert that science is able to manipulate consciousness by manipulating the brain therefore it must be an exclusive property of the brain. My first argument against this is that by manipulating the brain one is not manipulating consciousness they are merely manipulating what one is conscious of. If one wants to use this argument that brain manipulation is consciousness manipulation then one must use the same form of reasoning to deduct that brainless life forms are also conscious. For example, if a process is taken out which reduces my awareness of pain (anesthetics) and we know the awareness of pain is non-existent because I illicit no response to any stimuli then we have to conclude that when one does illicit a response to stimuli that it is aware of something. Therefore, if a starfish reacts to pain, that is, it struggles as I torture it then it logically follows that the starfish is aware. If the starfish is aware then the starfish is conscious. If a starfish is conscious then consciousness is not exclusive to the brainIn order for a theory to considered more likely to be true than other theories it must demonstrate evidence that gives it partial reasoning. One must demonstrate why it is more reasonable to believe conscious is the brain rather than the brain is conscious of. 3) MeditationIf conscious is measured by ones sensory of stimuli then one must assert that a buddhist monk in deep meditation is in a lower state of consciousness than someone eating a hamburger. An anxiety sufferer eating a hamburger is highly sensitive to external stimuli as opposed to that same person being in a state of meditation. However, it is common knowledge that this is the opposite effect of meditation. Meditation brings one into higher state of consciousness not lower. Buddhist monks have been know to subject themselves to all sorts of pain inflicting behviour whilst in a state of meditation without feeling pain. If meditation does increase level of consciousness and the brain's sensory of stimuli is directly related to consciousness then one must explain how a person in deep meditation said to be at a higher state of conscious is simultaenously subjecting themselves to a higher degree of pain without demonstrating such behviour. One who believes that conscious is related to sensory asserts that to remove ones senses of their external environment is to remove their consciousness. If this is the case, then how are meditation practicioners such as the Yogi Coudex able to lower their sense of their external environment whilst simultaneaously being in a higher state of consciousness? (see video below)There must be flaw in the reasoning here4) DreamsLacking awareness of one's external environment does not equate to being unconscious. One can be in a deep sleep -- said to be unconscious -- yet still show great signs of physical simulation through dreams. In a dream, one can fall in love or panic. Wakeup with heartache or sweating profusely. A bad dream can wake someone up more effectively than an alarm clock. A dream can feel just as real as reality. If lowering someone's consciousness is said to be the same as removing someone's senses, such as anaesthesia, then we must explain how a lack of sensory can result in the powerful effects felt in a dream stateNow I will give arguments as to why consciousness should be considered non-local. 5) Something cannot come from nothingTo assert that consciousness emerges and operates exclusively from organic material is to assert that it ceases to be once that material ceases to be. This is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence to believe because there's absolutely ZERO evidence of this occuring any where in nature. Everything that exists is the combination of things that already exist and will remain to exist - mainly atoms. Therefore, if consciousness did not exist prior to organic life forms then what is it? Why should it come into being? How can it just be created out of thin air? It requires less assumptions to believe that consciousness already existed and organisms merely tap into it. Like a radio taps into a radiosignal. If one wants to assert that consciousness never existed prior to lifeforms then one must supply evidence that consciousness is created by organic material. 5) Consciousness and space. Consciousness and space share a unique trait that no other form of existence shares. They're the only two things which can be completely absent of everything other than themselves. Empty Space: The complete absence of everything other than itself. Complete empty stillness Pure consciousness: The complete absence of everything other than itself. Complete stillness If we were to remove all matter and energy from the universe then we'd be left with only empty space. A state absent of everything other than itself. The same can be said if we were to remove everything except consciousness. There would only be a state of awareness and nothing else. This cannot be said for anything else. For example, the strings of string theory. Said to be the most smallest forms matter and therefore the most fundamental. But a string consists of 2 things; Itself and a single material - string. Yet space spaces consists of literally nothing yet it still is. It still consists of itself. Nothingness can be said to consist ofnothing even itself. Nothingness is completely non-existent. Nothingness: complete absence of everything. Non-existenceEmpty space: Absence of everything other than itself. Existence consisting of nothing. Everything else: Existence comprised of something. Pure Consciousness: Absence of everything other than itself. Existing as awareness but consisting of nothing. As you can see, this is evidence that supports the notion that empty space and conscious could very likely be one in the same thing. However, whereas empty space exists on the outter most regions of the universe consciousness exists in the inner most regions of the universe. Which is extremely coincidental considering how much quantum physics is being correlated with consciousness yet no one correlated Einsteins theory of general relativety with consciousness It is logical to assume that prior to the big bang there was only empty space. Or prior to all matter and energy existing there was only empty space. We come to this conclusion because it is self-evident. Without empty space to exist in nothing can exist. Therefore, empty space must exist prior to anything else. If empty space and consciousness exclusively share this unique trait then it's reasonable to believe that they co-existed prior to the universe. Considering there is no logical explanation as to how the birth of the universe can be caused by nothing then it's only logical to place the blame on the only culprit in the room -- consciousness. Therefore, conscious created the universe.https://youtu.be...;http://animals.mom.me...