Which of these theories of Consciousness seems more reasonable to you?

Question

(1)Consciousness is basically a fluke of evolution that came into being at some point in the evolution of life on Earth when some organism evolved the ability to be "aware" and thereby gained distinct survival advantages.

(2) Consciousness is such an utterly amazing phenomenon ( the universe becoming 'aware' of itself) that it is almost inconceiveable that it is just a fluke of evolution. If not for this 'fluke' would the entire drama of the universe have been played out before empty benches? More likely Consciousness is woven into the fabric of the universe itself in some fundamental way.

Tommy: I agree with your comment about the connection between consciousness and life, and that science has no true definition of either. I think one day they will be revealed to be one and the same thing.

WillRogers: Can you recommend some good readings on sufism? (I'd be interested to learn more)

Answer 1

I am a Christian, a theist who believes in one creator God. Having said that, I must tell you that I do not see any theory.

In general words are nothing but labels concerning an idea or concept. Words in turn may be more or less emotionally loaded. What you have here is the word consciousness defined with the synonym awareness; but no theory.

To have a theory you must have a principal somewhere;or at least a conjecture as to how consciousness might be explained. Sadly, the concepts of evolution and/or creation do not really set forth a workable principle.

Let me see if I can explain. One cannot consider awareness or consciousness without considering the word life in the mix.
Science has not defined life and hardly defined death. To my knowledge the only commonly accepted definition of
of death is the medical one: "The cessation of biological function."

You can work at the alternatives to the above. Figuring out what came before awareness is like postulating what came before the so-called big bang. Even a Christian cannot say much more than --- "In the beginning God...".

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Well, if life itself is some chemical/electical combination fluke, I guess the answer would be number 1.
If consciousness transcends life, that would be amazing! However, I do believe it is quite possible that the entire drama of the universe is being played out before empty benches.
Is it, like, important to have an audience all the time or something?

Answer 4

1. Science does not say "its a fluke of evolution". Science does not say it was "random chance". Go learn what it actually says before you seem even stupider.

2. Consciousness existing is NOT NOT NOT NOT evidence of any god.

You're so desperate, you're pulling anything you can out to try to prove that your religion is the right one and it isn't working.

Get an education. And I mean a real education. Don't just read a single biology book and figure you understand enough to know what science is talking about. I spent years studying it in university, so I DO understand it.

Answer 5

Both have merit. The term consciousness, if applied to intelligence or "cleverness" or "quickness of mind," would fit the first description. But consciousness seems to mean more than the survival-value aspects, and therefore seems to be more appropriate to the second approach.

I see the human mind as distinct from, but related to, the human soul. Both are involved in consciousness.

Answer 6

the 1st third of what you wrote substitute into somewhat smart yet then your good judgment collapsed thoroughly. If residing beings shaped from capability did exist this might neither lead them to immortal nor gods. no longer in basic terms that yet there is not any such ingredient as a soul. possession is yet another ingredient that may no longer genuine. the subject seems to be that your logical diagnosis have been given derailed by faith. Your concept seems to be designed to fill interior the hollow between what you already know and what you want the respond to be. that's no longer how technology works. you're able to desire to envision the available information without particular effect in strategies and see the place it leads you, somewhat than designing the diagnosis to furnish you the respond which you somewhat want. no longer in basic terms this yet once you build a extensive tower of 'What if?'s then it in basic terms takes one in each of them to be incorrect for the total shape of the argument to come lower back crashing down. even if, there is no longer something incorrect with slightly speculative theory, this is somewhat relaxing to work out the place it may lead. Edit: i'm properly responsive to and have an extremely reliable expertise of the regulation of conservation of capability, the belief or relativity and quantum concept - so there is not any might desire to be insulting. What you fail to comprehend is that there are not this sort of issues as gods, demons, spirits and souls. those issues have not have been given everywhere in scientific diagnosis. Edit: A huge wakeful being made fullyyt of non-solidified capability, won't be immortal if somebody chanced on a thank you to transform this is capability into electrical energy, and used that to ability his toaster.

Answer 7

Nr 1 belongs to consciousness as being just the superficial part of awareness.
Nr 2 belongs to awareness, which is beyond cconscious and unconscious

Answer 8

How about 3. God instilled a consciousness in us.

Answer 9

Number #2

That is an utterly beautiful rendition of what "Truth" is!
"Wisdom", is alive and well in the world!


The information that you requested has been sent.

Answer 10

2 sounds realy good to me