Michael F "not when viewed through the sunglasses of the analytical intellect with hardened preconceived ideas."
Sounds like you have some hardened preconceived ideas of your own.
G. - "I have another idea of what consciousness means" -
M. - And I have another idea of what rock means. If Rock means Tree, and Consciousness means leaves, then yes, rocks have consciousness. But if consciousness means understanding that oneself exists, then I see no possible means for a rock to be conscious. Why? Because rocks are static things with highly ordered structures, whereas things that process things have very complex structures that are subject to change.
I admit I can't prove that rocks don't enjoy debating philosophy. But for now, they will have to do for you, because I have all I have to say on this thread. It has been good, but it has gone on too long.
As usual, all I get for my pains is to be typecast as a brain-dead intellectual who is unable too see beyond his dried-out nose. That's a conversation that goes nowhere.
All it is is a way of killing all debate on deeply held ideas that - well, anything really. Fairies at the end of the garden, dancing with space aliens making crop circles and above it all, Jesus turning water into wine shortly after walking on it. All you need is to talk to Jesus/Allah/Odin and you will see how stupid you were to ask for proof... Now wear the magic underwear, put on the golden spectacles, and lets wire you up to the thetan eliminator. believe believe believe, because we don't have to give you any proof because words don't mean anything anymore. After all, the scientists cant agree on climate change or evolution so they are just as unknowing as anyone else, except for us, because we get our information fresh off the akashic records. Yes Sirree.. I don't gotta prove nothing. I just know I'm right. Who needs science when you have alternative facts; that fake news media always trying to chinese hoax you.
Gary R Smith Michael, I also felt that my last words were too strong, and tinged with judgment and frustration. I apologize.
In our conversation, you wrote that consciousness is what distinguishes conscious from unconscious and asked me for my definition.
I also asked you for your definition, and what you gave me was a quote from Wikipedia.
My definition was derived from reflecting on what distinguishes conscious from unconscious, with an intent to find the most fundamental occurrence of consciousness.
You never acknowledged that as being my definition, and I never agreed upon the Wikipedia version which seems to me to say nothing.
To have a real conversation, we needed to at least acknowledge each other's definitions, if not agree upon one, and that didn't happen.
Throughout our conversation you derisively labeled me as a New Ager, which I am not. I respect science and all other belief systems as they are distinctions within the whole and bring their own nuances to the unique life journeys of individual humans. While being deluded for a time can serve a purpose, it is not necessarily beneficial for longer term growth. I see in general the fallacies and shortcomings of science, new age, philosophy and religion and the dangers of adhering to any, too closely.
You wrote, 'But if consciousness means understanding that oneself exists, then I see no possible means for a rock to be conscious. Why? Because rocks are static things with highly ordered structures, whereas things that process things have very complex structures that are subject to change.'
That makes sense, and we have agreement that according to that definition, rocks are not conscious. 'That consciousness means understanding that oneself exists' was not a definition we discussed unless you mentioned it and I missed your comment. To me, that definition describes awareness, which I distinguish from consciousness.
For the sake of this conversation, I would like to have at least explored the definition of fundamental consciousness as the capacity to respond to stimuli and how that definition would affect the way we perceive a rock. Rocks are composed of atoms, and atoms respond to stimuli, yes? Has anyone made a serious attempt to elicit a response from a rock over means other than the five senses and the intellect? If such a study is performed using the standards of science (not by trying to stick a pin in one and expecting it to say 'ouch!'), and concludes rocks cannot respond to stimuli, I would gladly agree rocks have no capacity to be conscious. And that would not 'disprove' me because throughout this thread I have stated I do not hold a conviction that rocks are conscious, but have an open mind to the idea.
I have learned from this conversation, and appreciate you, and trust there are no hard feelings.