Consciousness created the universe

Thank you Con for appreciating my humor. I aslo thought your dedication of this debate to neurons was funnyCon's declaration on consciousness does not say anything about consciousness being limited to neurons. It just says that non-human neurological substrates also contain consciousness. But this doesn't give us evidence to believe what doesn't have consciousness it only gives us evidence of what does have consciousness. Effectively it says one can say with certainty that neurological organisms do have conscious but one cannot say with certainty that organisms without neurons have consciousness. I agree that we cannot be certain non-neurological organisms have consciousness. My argument is that until we have evidence that consciousness is exclusive to neurons then we must assume that all creatures demonstrating conscious behavior have consciousness. Con failed to give evidence as to why consciousness should be considered to be produced by neurons. From what I've gathered so far, the belief of the scientific community that consciousness arises from nuerons is a gut feeling more than a substantiated claim. Science has not been able to locate consciousness in itself or come up with a proven formula as to how/why consciousness should arise from neurons as opposed to being recepted by neurons. Con may supply evidence for this in the final round but unfortunately I won't be able to address it now. On that note, if we are taking opinions in to account then there's no reason to believe the thousands of scientists over the millions of spiritualists who utilize the concept of consciousness on a daily basis as to what it's true nature is. Science has not located consciousness nor has it come up with a solid mechnanism for what causes it. The discovery of neurons has brought science no closer to what causes consciousness, it's just brought science closer to what specifically passes information through most organisms. This is no different than someone a thousand years ago saying consciousness comes from the brain. "The brain processes information therefore this is what causes consciousness". "Sorry, the neurons process sensory information, this is what causes consciousness". Con finalizes his argument by stating his proof that neurons cause consciousness is the document of declaration. But I reiterate, this isn't evidence, this is just an appeal to an eductated opinion. And i've demon started why the scientific opinion isn't anymore educated than anyone elses in regards to consciousness. CON then uses cell division as a case against plants being conscious. Con is saying that plants don't actually "react" to stimuli their reactions are just the end result of a domino effect. but this could be said for any organism. In fact, it often is, it's called the absence of free will. Everything we do is the result of cause and effect. I'd also like to point out in Con's source: Following a series of still poorly understood events, phototropin activation leads to the formation of a gradient of the growth---The mechanics of plant life is still poorly understood. So how can we be led to believe that plants don't contain the basic requirements for consciousness? Con has not proven consciousness is exclusive to neurons yet. Therefore, we must assume they are conscious due to their behvior. https://youtu.be...CON: "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."ME: If plants have no influence over their own behavior then how are they able to memorize events and choose not to react? As stated in my previous source, plants that would usually react defensively to a certain stimuli (like being dropped) learned not to react after they realized the drop wasn't damaging them. Therefore, they obviosuly do have the capability not to reactThen we have intelligent slime: http://www.scientificamerican.com... has been scientifically demonstrated to be able to solve mazes even. How does con account for this behavior?In summary of non-neurological consciousness I would propose the Orch-or theory which suggest that consciousness is quantum fluctuations encapsulated by microtubules existent in all organisms, including plants. http://www.sciencedaily.com...CON: 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.. 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.Me: And doctors can give you a pill so you don't feel pain. My point is that those who use meditation to achieve such feats as what has been demonstrated should be trusted as to what is actually taking place when they do so. CON: 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.ME: Con is arguing that starfish have minds. I do not agree with this. I associate the mind with conscious thought seperate from mechanical processes of the brain such as organ regulation. Deep meditation is the practice of losing one's thoughts and simply being; i.e mindlessCON: I agree what the Yogi did was amazing, but it was not void of consciousness or indicative of no self-awareness.ME: Meditation is opposite of being void of consciousness so I agree with Con's first statement however I would argue that the Yogi was absent of self-awareness because that's the point of meditation. To lose all awareness of one's self and simply be. CON: 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.ME: I cannot see that all 4 of my wives love me but I assume they do by their actions and expressions. Yes it is possible that their female brains are easily deluded but I give them the benefit of the doubt because my mate Rakiib Abdulla the 3rd can vouch for them. Also, I don't agree with your paradox. The "self" among spiritualist is considered to be the conscious connected to the universe so when I leave my body I wouldn't need a physical body. CON: 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.ME: But I do trust you know where you've been in your car and when you've been without it. CON Says that space requires particles to exist not the other way around. I disagree with this. Perhaps EMPTY space requires particles to exist but not space. If anything they come into existence simultaneously. But it is common sense that particles require space, irresptecive of their chronological order of existence. Unless Con can give us an example of particles existing without space. Which is impossible. The minute a particle comes into existence space is created. But even common sense says that space MUST exist prior to the particle, even for the smallest amount of time possible. It is just not logical that a particle comes into existence THEN the space it occupies exists there after. How can the particle exist without a space to occupy?CON then goes on to talk about nothing and the absence of space. This topic seems irrelevent to the debate at this point. Whether nothing is quantum particles or it is the absence of everything, including particles (as per the dictionary definition) doesn't change the nature of consciousness. Con has mentioned multiple times that consciousness is not quantum fluctuations. I never thought it was but after investigating this claim and discovering the orch-or theory above that this very likely the case. As I sated in the first round, consciousness and empty space are the ONLY 2 things in existenc which share the same trait of being absent of everything other then themesleves. What this means is that IF you could separate consciousness from the body it, along with empty space, would be the only thing in the universe that consists of nothing other than itself. To put this into perspective, even a string of string theory (considered the smallest object) consists of 2 things: itself and a string. You cannot put anything inside this string because it is being occupied by a material. The same cannot be said for space and consciousness. Space can be filled with matter and consciousness with thought. Considering that Con argues quantum particles come into existence WITH space simultaneously this is a strong case that consciousness IS quantum particles. Quantum particles are not a thing, they just are. Space is not a thing, it just is. Consciousness is not a thing, it just is. Strange correlation wouldn't you think? Not to mention, this correlation would explain the BIG 3 questions:What caused the universe? what caused life? what caused consciousness? Quantum fluctuations. Allahakbar!!!Con's statements about +0 -0 = 0 are irrelevant. They don't build a case against consciousness at all. I'm running out of characters so i must summarize:1. Con has not established that consciousness should be exclusive to neurons. He's posited ZERO evidence other than an appel to an invalid opinion. 2. I have given ample evidnce to believe consciousness is indpendent of neurons until PROVEN otherwise. 3. I have demonstrated the strong correlation between quantum fluctuations, space and conscious which would all answer the 3 biggest mysteries. 4. Sir Roger Penrose, i highly respected scientists among others, agree's with me as per orch-or theory5. If I'm correct, everything in the universe would be perfect and explanable including morality and human behavior. THANKS CON!