GENIUS FORUMS

Hello Interested Parties

I'm with understanding that Scientists confirm that our consciousness is in our cells. My theory is that consciousness begins with ejaculation of the male sperm into the female body. The strongest and most determined sperm consciously swims its way up to connect with the fertilized egg. Together the dual consciousnessess enmesh into one consciousness creating male and female consciousness, producing an embryo, and than the fetus.

Inside the male testicles sperm swim about, are they alive without consciousness is a question to ponder.

If sperm is without consciousness, than how does sperm intuitively know to do the job it is naturally intended to do?

It would be interesting to know what chemical components create male sperm. Its amazingly divine that a human is created from both sperm and egg combined which together a dual consciousness is created into one consciousness upon conception.

My consciousness reveals to me that my dual consciousnessess of both male and female are consciously aware of each others presence.

Please oblige me with your concept or understanding of consciousness.

What is your working definition of "consciousness"?

Consciousness is more than just being alive. There are different levels of God consciousness in every state of awareness.

Working consciousness is awareness of the supreme divine being residing within us. Those of us at this awareness level knows reality. Reality is ourselves and the God supreme within us.

We are all parts of the divine energy of God who is alive within us all.

So, are you saying your definition of "consciousness: is: the awareness of the divine being within us? If so, what is this "divine being" (don't just say God)?

Not in the cells as such

"So you are saying your definition of "consciousness: is: the awareness of the divine being within us? If so, what is this "divine being"

Three times yesterday I wrote my logical beliefs only to lose them all. In the event it happens a fourth time, I shall write very little this time.

"If so, what is this "divine being"

In one word "Ourselves"

Explanation later

Well, the sperm might not be aware of why it 'struggles' to get through onto the egg. Nobody knows for certain wether the sperm is actually conscious of some plan it may have. It may just happen to go in the direction of the egg without really knowing it would end up there.

Nevertheless, thought's without consciousness are meaningless, how should one formulate any thoughts without being conscious? what would they contain?.

Also, while thought without consciousness is useless,
then so is consciousness useless without thought,
because it is only after thought one starts to examine, if you will, the product of consciousness, to make consciousness meaningful. Consciousness devoid of any thought essentially renders consciousness useless, because without thoughts, one can't examine the dualities of consciousness to form anything meaningful about this 'consciousness' . Essentially, what we see without thoughts is nothing, nothing whatsoever.

So, I agree that neither can exist without the other.

It's difficult to fathom that the sperm has no intention or that it is not aware of itself. This is by divine nature that the sperm and egg connect to amazingly produce a human being. And it is conscious enough to do what it is designed to do. It doesn't make sense not to believe this isn't a divine act, just the production alone stemming from the connection of both sperm and egg should tell us it's human divineness and is meant to be. It is easier to believe the sperm and egg know their rightful jobs than to believe it is just by chance a human is created.

Scientists would question why the sperm connects to the egg to fertilize it, if nothing happened after that, if no production came from it.

Plants are alive, but are they conscious, can any Scientist prove plants are not conscious?

From the moment of pregnancy concept dual consciousness is born, the will to live. They are conscious without thought. At the precise moment of brain development in the embryo stage, thought is originated. A fetus can think, but not in terms of words, it is with self-understanding that it is aware of itself.

mensa-maniac wrote:It's difficult to fathom that the sperm has no intention or that it is not aware of itself. This is by divine nature that the sperm and egg connect to amazingly produce a human being. And it is conscious enough to do what it is designed to do. It doesn't make sense not to believe this isn't a divine act, just the production alone stemming from the connection of both sperm and egg should tell us it's human divineness and is meant to be. It is easier to believe the sperm and egg know their rightful jobs than to believe it is just by chance a human is created.

Supposing it was by chance, what would you expect to find? You are a human, if other realities could have existed by chance, they don't exist as this universe with you in it.

Scientists would question why the sperm connects to the egg to fertilize it, if nothing happened after that, if no production came from it.

If no reproduction occurred and we were here to talk about it, that would be a miracle.

Plants are alive, but are they conscious, can any Scientist prove plants are not conscious?

"Scientists" aren't in the business of proving things don't exist.

From the moment of pregnancy concept dual consciousness is born, the will to live. They are conscious without thought. At the precise moment of brain development in the embryo stage, thought is originated. A fetus can think, but not in terms of words, it is with self-understanding that it is aware of itself.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Conciousness is the combined pulse of many entities. Us humans are a hive like a bee hive. We share the combined pulses to get an answer.

From the moment of pregnancy conception dual consciousness is born, the will to live. They are conscious without thought. At the precise moment of brain development in the embryo stage, thought is originated. A fetus can think, but not in terms of words, it is self-understanding that it is aware of itself.

"How have you come to this conclusion"

A fetus can think, but not in terms of words, it is self-understanding that it is aware of itself.

I conclude this to be truth from empirical knowledge of my memory which was fully developed at the fetus stage prepared to go through the birth canal. I remember like it happened a minute ago. I remember precisely how I felt about leaving my comfortable haven, I deliberately fought against myself, I didn't want to go.

A consciousness maybe mine instructed me to leave now, but, I was ultimately reluctant to leave my comfort zone. I remember so clearly that I didn't want to go, so I headed in the other direction going up inside my mother nearly causing her death.

I was ultimately aware of myself inside my mother's womb, I didn't know I was in my mothers womb, I only knew I existed there. I was all alone in a world of comfort and awareness. I knew it was my time to leave, but I didn't want to leave. I remember this moment ultimately.

This is the only knowledge I have in my brain. I am not intelligent nor smart, just sensible with logic. Others regard me as being highly intelligent, however, that's their observation. I know one thing for sure and that is the truth I revealed to you in this post today.

I believe we humans created ourselves through the earth's intelligence, which was here before humanity.

Your first memories were to remember how to build the human body one step at a time, and it's in your DNA. Each step remembered by just a couple of particles. Particle A remembers how to build just a section of tubing. Particle B remembers how to build the next section. Particle C the section after that.. until a vein is produced. One thing is for sure, and that is that the brain has not been built yet, but we are still carrying out instructions.

Interesting, but how can the body build itself with memory if the brain hasn't been developed first? Memory is derived from the brain isn't it, unless the body is building itself from states of consciousness without thought--but natural inclinations.

You are defining "consciousness" and "memory" in such a way as to make them interchangeable with "causation". Your definitions are so vague that any particle following a determinate path would be "conscious" and its cause would be its "memory". This may be loosely correct if Tononi's theories hold, but its a bit dubious as it places human consciousness on the same foundation as the on/off switch on my dryer and clearly there is qualitative differences between me and my dryer. What the dryer is lacking is an integrated self-model as the subjective of conscious experience. Without the self-model appearing as the subject of conscious observation there is effectively no consciousness as such. The causal relationships in any part of the dryer do not constitute a self-model, nor do the causal relationships at play in a sperm, ovary, zygote, blastocyst or fetus.

Animus wrote:You are defining "consciousness" and "memory" in such a way as to make them interchangeable with "causation". Your definitions are so vague that any particle following a determinate path would be "conscious" and its cause would be its "memory". This may be loosely correct if Tononi's theories hold, but its a bit dubious as it places human consciousness on the same foundation as the on/off switch on my dryer and clearly there is qualitative differences between me and my dryer. What the dryer is lacking is an integrated self-model as the subjective of conscious experience. Without the self-model appearing as the subject of conscious observation there is effectively no consciousness as such. The causal relationships in any part of the dryer do not constitute a self-model, nor do the causal relationships at play in a sperm, ovary, zygote, blastocyst or fetus.

Well for one thing.. DNA does have a memory of its own. It remembers our ancestry, and it remembers times of grief. That has been proven. If one of your ancestors was attacked by a lion, then you would have a slightly higher fear of Lions than most other people. But what I am really trying to point out that we class our eyes, ears, nose, and mouth as the identity of intelligence. A washing machine has no way of telling you that it is made from intelligent particles, but it does obey some rules anyway. It maintains its shape, it stores its colour, it obeys the rules of gravity, it remembers its dents, and scratches, it obeys corrosive destruction, it holds temperature variations, it reacts to light, it vibrates to sound.. and when heated up to high temperatures it becomes a bubbling pot of highly active electrons. These electrons can then be put inside the body of a robot, and maybe some day win a court case to give them the freedom of self conciousness.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:You are defining "consciousness" and "memory" in such a way as to make them interchangeable with "causation". Your definitions are so vague that any particle following a determinate path would be "conscious" and its cause would be its "memory". This may be loosely correct if Tononi's theories hold, but its a bit dubious as it places human consciousness on the same foundation as the on/off switch on my dryer and clearly there is qualitative differences between me and my dryer. What the dryer is lacking is an integrated self-model as the subjective of conscious experience. Without the self-model appearing as the subject of conscious observation there is effectively no consciousness as such. The causal relationships in any part of the dryer do not constitute a self-model, nor do the causal relationships at play in a sperm, ovary, zygote, blastocyst or fetus.

Well for one thing.. DNA does have a memory of its own. It remembers our ancestry, and it remembers times of grief. That has been proven. If one of your ancestors was attacked by a lion, then you would have a slightly higher fear of Lions than most other people. But what I am really trying to point out that we class our eyes, ears, nose, and mouth as the identity of intelligence. A washing machine has no way of telling you that it is made from intelligent particles, but it does obey some rules anyway. It maintains its shape, it stores its colour, it obeys the rules of gravity, it remembers its dents, and scratches, it obeys corrosive destruction, it holds temperature variations, it reacts to light, it vibrates to sound.. and when heated up to high temperatures it becomes a bubbling pot of highly active electrons. These electrons can then be put inside the body of a robot, and maybe some day win a court case to give them the freedom of self conciousness.

No you are conflating causation with memory. "Memory" is an emergent phenomena of the representational structure of the human brain. A person suffering anterograde amnesia who is cut deep across the wrist will have scars as the effect of the slicing and healing, but will have no mindful recollection (memory) of the cutting. A dryer does not need mindful recollection (memory) of the cause of the dents or even the dents themselves. They retain their dents as a function of causation, not mindful recollection. The term "memory" denotes "mindful recollection" originating from the Latin "memoria" meaning "mindful, remembering". A dryer does not have a mind as such, and our habit of "mindful, remembering" is dependent on the deep representational structure of the human brain.

Animus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:You are defining "consciousness" and "memory" in such a way as to make them interchangeable with "causation". Your definitions are so vague that any particle following a determinate path would be "conscious" and its cause would be its "memory". This may be loosely correct if Tononi's theories hold, but its a bit dubious as it places human consciousness on the same foundation as the on/off switch on my dryer and clearly there is qualitative differences between me and my dryer. What the dryer is lacking is an integrated self-model as the subjective of conscious experience. Without the self-model appearing as the subject of conscious observation there is effectively no consciousness as such. The causal relationships in any part of the dryer do not constitute a self-model, nor do the causal relationships at play in a sperm, ovary, zygote, blastocyst or fetus.

Well for one thing.. DNA does have a memory of its own. It remembers our ancestry, and it remembers times of grief. That has been proven. If one of your ancestors was attacked by a lion, then you would have a slightly higher fear of Lions than most other people. But what I am really trying to point out that we class our eyes, ears, nose, and mouth as the identity of intelligence. A washing machine has no way of telling you that it is made from intelligent particles, but it does obey some rules anyway. It maintains its shape, it stores its colour, it obeys the rules of gravity, it remembers its dents, and scratches, it obeys corrosive destruction, it holds temperature variations, it reacts to light, it vibrates to sound.. and when heated up to high temperatures it becomes a bubbling pot of highly active electrons. These electrons can then be put inside the body of a robot, and maybe some day win a court case to give them the freedom of self conciousness.

No you are conflating causation with memory. "Memory" is an emergent phenomena of the representational structure of the human brain. A person suffering anterograde amnesia who is cut deep across the wrist will have scars as the effect of the slicing and healing, but will have no mindful recollection (memory) of the cutting. A dryer does not need mindful recollection (memory) of the cause of the dents or even the dents themselves. They retain their dents as a function of causation, not mindful recollection. The term "memory" denotes "mindful recollection" originating from the Latin "memoria" meaning "mindful, remembering". A dryer does not have a mind as such, and our habit of "mindful, remembering" is dependent on the deep representational structure of the human brain.

If you press lightly on a washing machine it will bend inwards, and the pop back to where it was before. Some people refer to metal as memory metal, because it goes back to the shape that it was before. If I wanted to create a computer program to produce the same effect, I would have to store the shape somewhere in my program. It would be quite complex, and involve many equations.

The metal paneling on the dryer is not the same computer software. You seem to be suffering from categorical mismatching. The metal panel does not need to "remember" anything, because its "popping back" is a function of its structure. "Memory" may also be a function of the structure of the human brain, but it is qualitatively different from the function of a sheet of metal. Or are you willing to extend human legal rights to wayward scraps of metal?

Animus wrote:The metal paneling on the dryer is not the same computer software. You seem to be suffering from categorical mismatching. The metal panel does not need to "remember" anything, because its "popping back" is a function of its structure. "Memory" may also be a function of the structure of the human brain, but it is qualitatively different from the function of a sheet of metal. Or are you willing to extend human legal rights to wayward scraps of metal?

Humans need rights because we have pain sensors, and also because a human body has been built to accept itself as a whole property. There of course is the planet Earth. It has higher rights than us, and yet it is being destroyed because it does not scream in pain. The planet Earth is also a hive of creatures just like us. Without outward sensors. As a whole.. 6 billion humans could call themselves Earth if they could share the same thoughts. Planets 1 billion miles away are just sitting there.. do they serve no purpose at all? Seems rather a strange waste of time to have billions of planets for only one creature that calls itself sentient.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:The metal paneling on the dryer is not the same computer software. You seem to be suffering from categorical mismatching. The metal panel does not need to "remember" anything, because its "popping back" is a function of its structure. "Memory" may also be a function of the structure of the human brain, but it is qualitatively different from the function of a sheet of metal. Or are you willing to extend human legal rights to wayward scraps of metal?

Humans need rights because we have pain sensors, and also because a human body has been built to accept itself as a whole property. There of course is the planet Earth. It has higher rights than us, and yet it is being destroyed because it does not scream in pain. The planet Earth is also a hive of creatures just like us. Without outward sensors. As a whole.. 6 billion humans could call themselves Earth if they could share the same thoughts. Planets 1 billion miles away are just sitting there.. do they serve no purpose at all? Seems rather a strange waste of time to have billions of planets for only one creature that calls itself sentient.

It seems like you are speciously trying to construct an argument for a person God. Appealing to the consequence, in a teleological manner, for the "purpose" of distant planets.

Still, this is just an evasion from the original problem of explaining how and in what way a sheet of scrap metal is conscious.

Animus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:The metal paneling on the dryer is not the same computer software. You seem to be suffering from categorical mismatching. The metal panel does not need to "remember" anything, because its "popping back" is a function of its structure. "Memory" may also be a function of the structure of the human brain, but it is qualitatively different from the function of a sheet of metal. Or are you willing to extend human legal rights to wayward scraps of metal?

Humans need rights because we have pain sensors, and also because a human body has been built to accept itself as a whole property. There of course is the planet Earth. It has higher rights than us, and yet it is being destroyed because it does not scream in pain. The planet Earth is also a hive of creatures just like us. Without outward sensors. As a whole.. 6 billion humans could call themselves Earth if they could share the same thoughts. Planets 1 billion miles away are just sitting there.. do they serve no purpose at all? Seems rather a strange waste of time to have billions of planets for only one creature that calls itself sentient.

It seems like you are speciously trying to construct an argument for a person God. Appealing to the consequence, in a teleological manner, for the "purpose" of distant planets.

Still, this is just an evasion from the original problem of explaining how and in what way a sheet of scrap metal is conscious.

Ok..

1/ Nothing can actually move, because linear movement requires infinitely smaller gaps between molecules. You cannot have infinitely smaller gaps, because that requires a structure made from infinitely smaller particles to fit in the gaps. So movement require a system of recreating particles, and passing the message along a line of energy dots, so that everything is sort of transported one gap at a time.

2/ Because nothing can actually move, it means that the message that is passed along the chain has to be adaptable. It can be a colour, a sound, a molecule, a taste, and finally a thought.

3/ Because thoughts cannot actually move, they have to be available for all positions of the universe. Even inside a pile of junk. And because the junk uses limited amounts of information, for shape, colour, and millions of other pieces of logic, it therefore contains everything that we do.

When is the human soul delivered? At birth.

yana wrote:When is the human soul delivered? At birth.

It is formed when enough particles are gathered together to form a solid pattern. Like the dots on a TV screen.. you need quite a few to see a picture. As the brain develops, at about the age of 5 you have enough particles to become coherent. So about 5 years old for a human. But taking the whole logic to its limit, if you do not consider yourself human, but rather consider yourself part of the universe, then part of you was around millions of years ago.

I distinctly remember having a soul even as a young child. But oh, we were talking consciousness.

yana wrote:I distinctly remember having a soul even as a young child. But oh, we were talking consciousness.

You mean sentience right? You earliest thought may be your soul if you like to call it that. But it may also be a delusion. It depends on how logical you are. If you remember something quite complex at 2 then you probably made the memory up at about 11 when you needed to feel special.