sublunar wrote: ↑25 Aug 2017
And this is where you put too much faith on our current limited understanding. You are not an expert, but you make statements like this as if you have been personally searching for these things. But easily available across the internet are countless articles in which scientists admit their lack of understanding. Perhaps you know more than they.
Well, do they try to infer some sort of non-organic attribute to consciousness? If so, what, and what evidence do we have? If not, then we're right back where we started.
I mean, I've heard plenty of hypotheses about what consciousness might be. There's well-known scientists postulating some sort of extra-dimensional energy field that interacts with the brain, somehow. But as far as I've seen, nobody has gotten past the hypothesis stage to finding the slightest bit of concrete evidence, so while it's good that they're thinking about the issue, there's nothing worth hanging any sort of belief on, unless you're one of those that just actively dislikes the idea of determinism on a visceral level. That's the actual faith, there.
sublunar wrote: ↑25 Aug 2017
Find a scientific definition of Consciousness.
I don't have to. That's your faulty thinking in all this, that somehow I need to understand a thing perfectly in order to make a judgement on its probable nature. All I have to know is that we are organic beings and there is no evidence for anything non-organic about our consciousness. And besides, your whole reasoning is a logic fault in and of itself, since by your logic we can't ever know
anything, since we don't fully understand the entire universe. Imagine the NASA scientists, plotting a course to the moon, when someone steps in: "Hey, we don't know exactly how the universe came into being and we're not entirely sure what gravity actually is, so we can't possibly plot a rocket's trajectory!"