If you can't define consciousness, then maybe it's because it doesn't exist in this universe.
Why do you jump to the most preposterous conclusions instead of looking for the simplest one first? That's Occam's Razor in a nutshell, and you simply
DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. This is what bothers me most about you: You simply do not bother to
THINK LOGICALLY. Your brain bounces around looking for the most attractive, fanciful stuff, and you ignore everything else because it just isn't enough fun.
Science is hard work, and you are not a hard worker. You want everything to be easy and fun.
Isn't it possible that the reason we can't define consciousness is that we just haven't studied it enough? We've only been able to map regions of the brain for a few decades, and only at a very high level. We're going to have to do a lot better than that before we can start following thoughts around in somebody's brain.
You have ZERO PATIENCE! You're not willing to wait for a difficult process to be completed, so you jump in and postulate a supernatural explanation. Somehow you think that's an improvement. I don't understand why, because YOUR hypothesis hasn't been proven either, and on top of that YOU NEVER SUPPLY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT OR A METHODOLOGY FOR TESTING IT. So until you do, IT CAN NEVER BE TESTED SO IT CAN NEVER BE PROVEN TRUE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
You seem to regard your role here as a one-man Peanut Gallery, shouting out random thoughts to the scientists on the stage, because their work isn't exciting enough and fast enough and you're getting bored. (Or since you're surely too young to remember Howdy Doody, a one-man Statler and Waldorf.
)
Cosmologists tell us that the big bang came from nothing, or that they don't know what caused the big bang.
Why do you have so little faith in scientists that you presume that they will NEVER be able to figure out what caused it? It's only been about one century since we realized that there even was a Big Bang. We've learned a lot about it in that time. There's more to learn. You just have to be patient, and that seems to be utterly impossible for you. You must have ADHD or something like that. You're utterly useless in a discussion like this. You bounce around like a ping-pong ball, looking for something exciting, and when you don't find anything you just start shouting preposterous assertions at us to try to make something happen.
A supernatural cause is one hypothesis.
But a hypothesis must be presented with a least a modicum of evidence before anyone will treat it with respect. And you have NEVER presented any evidence. Your hypothesis, therefore, is not worthy of respect. You're rapidly falling into that same category yourself. I notice that a growing number of the people who post on this thread are getting sick of your middle school-level understanding of science (at least that's the way you present it), your grade-school level of patience with the scientific method (again, that's the way you present it), and your Stone Age reliance on preposterous supernatural explanations for things you don't understand.
Is this really the way you like to be perceived? Is this what the chicks go for these days? The 1960s are sure over!
Why do you bother posting on a science board when, basically, you have absolutely no respect for science, you haven't even bothered to learn how it works, and when somebody tries to explain it to you (in my case at least three times for one simple part of science: Occam's Razor) you stick your fingers in your ears and go La La La La La, then push your own Restart button and repeat the same antiscientific stuff you already typed twelve pages ago?
At first I assumed that you just don't want to learn. Now I'm beginning to think that you're incapable of it. You have not learned one thing from this thread. It's been a complete waste of time.
As I suggested a moment ago: undiagnosed ADHD.
No, you don't have premonitions, no one does, it's all baloney, dude. Stop lying about it.
You're only marginally better than Mazulu. I've told you twice now that people who say stupid things are not necessarily lying. They often believe they're true. There are lots of people who hear voices that aren't there. There are lots of people who have random ideas pop into their head which they honestly think are the result of some supernatural event because they
FEEL so real.
We know that some people hear voices in their heads that tell them to go out and kill people. Fortunately not all of those voices are quite so homicidal.
Do you think all the people who say they KNOW that God and Jesus are real are lying?
For a science forum...there's not a lot of it here.
Last time somebody did the tally, the average age of our members was 17. And for many of them I'm sure their emotional maturity lags just a tiny bit behind their intellectual maturity.
For example, the earth was believed to be flat for centuries, because observation seemed to indicate this. The logic and observation circles all added up and appeared to be consistent with the detailed observations anyone could make. But brewing in the mind of early science was the right brain 3-D data ball composed of this data circles. The unconscious flex of this ball (gut feeling) gave them ideas to explore a different avenue which confirmed the earth was round. This confirmation shook all the old logic planes out of place. This was scary for the status quo, so this was suppressed until the tennis ball stopped vibrating in their minds.
Actually it was simpler than that. The transportation technologies developed in the Bronze Age (the wheel, fast-moving domesticated riding and draft animals, roads, ships capable of long voyages, etc.) allowed people to travel longer distances than their ancestors. As they traveled north or south, they couldn't help noticing that the stars weren't in quite the same place. By golly, it was as though they were seeing them
from a different angle!
It was explorers who figured this out, not scholars.
Contrary to urban legend, in Columbus's time every sailor knew that the Earth was round. Long before his time the Greeks had even come up with a pretty decent estimate of its circumference. Columbus was actually an incompetent captain who didn't get the numbers right. Otherwise he would have known that Hispaniola was several thousand miles too close to be India. It's a good thing Hispaniola was there: he hadn't brought anywhere near enough food and other supplies to actually make the voyage to India. They would have all starved!
