If There Were No Consciousness What Would Be The Point Of Material Existence?

If there was no conciousness ...
.... ATS would not exist

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Just because science struggles to define consciousness properly, doesn't mean consciousness does not exist. And consciousness is not only determined "by viewing, interacting and experimenting on human organisms". Consciousness is experienced by all sentient creatures - not only those that can communicate their thoughts and feelings in a manner which humans can understand.

Well I didn’t say “science” struggles to define consciousness therefor it does not exist. I said what people are describing is the human body rather than something called “consciousness”. This occurs in medicine, psychology, and neuroscience. What else besides the body are they looking at? Nothing. Conscious is an adjective, not a noun. Adjectives describes things, not are things. That something the term describes is the human body. People who claim to study the nature of consciousness are not studying consciousness as such, but are studying the human body as such.

Consciousness is not experienced, because there is nothing of consciousness to experience. If we could experience it, you would be able to point consciousness out and describe your experience of it. The creatures are only experiencing themselves, their body, and how it relates to the world around it.

I am claiming here that consciousness is simply another word—like soul, like spirit, like mind, like psyche—for the human body. What we do not understand about "consciousness" is a direct 1-to-1 ratio to what we do not understand about the human body.

a reply to: Aphorism

When a person is administered anesthesia does the body disappear?

originally posted by: artistpoet
If there was no conciousness ...
.... ATS would not exist

Until someone is aware of ATS's existence, ATS doesn't exist. Consciousness does not depend on the existence of ATS, though ATS's existence depends on people's conscious awareness and interaction with it. This same conscious awareness of ATS can cause it's destruction also, through such things as hacker attacks. ATS can try to prevent it's destruction through a little donation box at the top because hacker attacks are too expensive to maintain on ad revenue and traffic alone. If one does not care about ATS's existence, then they wont care about posting at ATS, if someone doesn't care whether ATS is destroyed by hacker attacks then they won't donate either.

If people donate and ATS still falls and is destroyed, it only matters to those that took up the cause to keep ATS alive, and those that set out to destroy ATS. How long ATS matters to that person that took up the cause, once it is gone... will only depend on how long it takes for that person; to find somewhere else to fill the void of want in the person that ATS covered for them, and since ATS is now destroyed in the same scenario, those that set out to destroy ATS will have to fill the want to destroy similar by looking else where.

Will donating prevent these expense attacks? Nope it is just a band-aid, hoping the attackers get bored and o elsewhere. I suppose it would be a good idea to ask why the attackers why they want to destroy ATS... but by replying with a why, would make them vulnerable to prosecution because hacking is illegal. So, in order for ATS to survive without a band-aid for the problem, ATS itself must investigate itself for why someone would want to destroy ATS, and who might that be?

Since consciousness, holds ideals and these ideals are motivators for existing and doing things, then the answer would be that ATS challenges the ideals held by those attacking it. Now one simply has to ask, who's ideals does ATS attack and challenge to the point that they wish ATS to be destroyed. I don't know ATS's enemies, so all I could do is ponder a guess... I am sure ATS itself has a clearer idea who that may be, the motive behind attacks itself is moot since they are based on opposing ideals: ATS existing or ATS not existing as the goal for both sides of the battle... focusing on the who being the only importance in the fight to keep ATS afloat, and those attempting to hide themselves long enough to destroy ATS, is the key to solving the sink or swim situation, while all else floats in the mean time.

I challenge any and all ideals that are held as belief... which means I probably have way more enemies than ATS. Now if ATS's mission statement, "Deny Ignorance" means; do not allow ignorance, or if it means; deny having any... I suppose is left up to debate.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Elegant response ...

However my point or belief is that conciousness moulds matter
That we each are concious beings ... it separates us from say a rock.

When I use the word conciousness I refer to sentient beings such as ourselves
Yet everything is made from something even thoughts or dreams

This does nor demean said rock for conciousness itself or what I term as Universal Intelligence has created all things with a purpose a mind ...

As a child I often asked "What if there was nothing at all" ... but hey there is a big Universe of wonder out there which we can learn about and appreciate because of our facility for thought.

Re ATS and donations ... If I could I would but I am presently here typing in Mid Winter without any heating because it is too expensive for my below welfare level which I chose as a self employed artist ... however I have more freedom to do what I believe in ...

a reply to: ImaFungi

When a person is administered anesthesia does the body disappear?

Are they administering anesthesia to consciousness?

Anesthesia affects the body. Nothing disappears. For something to disappear, it has to have been there in the first place. If it is there, you could show me, but all you will ever be pointing to is particular parts of the body and what the body is able or not able to do given certain conditions.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Just because science struggles to define consciousness properly, doesn't mean consciousness does not exist. And consciousness is not only determined "by viewing, interacting and experimenting on human organisms". Consciousness is experienced by all sentient creatures - not only those that can communicate their thoughts and feelings in a manner which humans can understand.

"Well I didn’t say “science” struggles to define consciousness therefor it does not exist. I said what people are describing is the human body rather than something called “consciousness”. This occurs in medicine, psychology, and neuroscience. What else besides the body are they looking at? Nothing. Conscious is an adjective, not a noun. Adjectives describes things, not are things. That something the term describes is the human body. People who claim to study the nature of consciousness are not studying consciousness as such, but are studying the human body as such."

consciousness is an effect of existing, the consciousness experienced depends on what the conscious is aware of. If consciousness is only self aware, then only it's existence matters. If consciousness is other aware, it can have motive to act on the effects not only caused by itself but by other. If a bacteria was aware of the damage it was doing to it's host, then it might form a conscience to the damage it's existence is causing the other, and consciously make a judgement as to which existence is more important... it's or it's hosts? If it determines it's existence is more important, then it will kill the host in favor or it's own existence, if it determines the hosts existence more important than it's own, then it will either cease to exist by consciously choosing to ignore it's nature for existing and starve, or try to find another host it deems less important in existence. If one is in a coma, their awareness is not aware they are in a coma, since their awareness has no idea, then whatever fills their consciousness has nothing to do with being in a coma. The same way that we can be washing dishes, with our body... but only aware of the stream of consciousness while doing so. We can direct our conscious awareness to be on the task, or far away doing some other task instead.

"Consciousness is not experienced, because there is nothing of consciousness to experience. If we could experience it, you would be able to point consciousness out and describe your experience of it. The creatures are only experiencing themselves, their body, and how it relates to the world around it."

Consciousness is a culmination of experience from just existing, bacteria consciousness is just an expression of it's function as bacteria to consume it's host and replicate itself, this in and of itself is just forming it's function... it isn't aware of a host having consciousness or that it is conscious of the bacteria within itself. Nature will decide through evolution which one survives. Science tries to shortcut evolution through medicine etc. to keep us hosts alive in spite of bacteria. Eventually evolution will settle the score, but humanity is not patient enough or lacking compassion and empathy enough to say... let nature take it's course... adaptation to adversity will sort it eventually, and if not we simply disappear.

The bits flying around the conscious can form thoughts based on our present awareness(whatever form that may take), these thoughts can form idea's about experience, these idea's can become ideals or a reason for being, these reasons for being if not found unreasonable by an individual become truth to them, instead of just an ideal, idea, and thought that gave birth to it.

Do these ideals/ideas/concepts that have become beliefs, based on conscience have any validity? To some one that does not believe in them? None whatsoever, they are just something they have to deal with in the course of their own existence, because the ideal/ideas/concepts and belief of them are now something in their awareness that they have to sort out, and hope those believing in them do not carry them too far and become a determent to themselves and others existence. For those that take those ideals/ideas/concepts as belief they mean their very existence, and will fight to keep them valid even to the point of using cognitive dissonance to do so, when faced with something equally valid in logic, or another that crushes the belief to bits.

"I am claiming here that consciousness is simply another word—like soul, like spirit, like mind, like psyche—for the human body. What we do not understand about "consciousness" is a direct 1-to-1 ratio to what we do not understand about the human body."

Please see ImaFungi's response for why consciousness does not equate to being the body.

a reply to: Aphorism

Ok, thanks for clearing that up and elaborating.

It seems our disagreement stems from different views on the mind–body problem. My views seem to be more attuned to the dualism school of thought, while yours more to the monism school of thought.

I don't think we will find too much common ground on this topic because we are arguing from completely opposite sides of the fence.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Ok, thanks for clearing that up and elaborating.

It seems our disagreement stems from different views on the mind–body problem. My views seem to be more attuned to the dualism school of thought, while yours more to the monism school of thought.

I don't think we will find too much common ground on this topic because we are arguing from completely opposite sides of the fence.

If we are led by reason, that depends on the validity of the arguments and the evidence. Let's both sit on the fence, and let the arguments and evidence push us on to a certain side.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: artistpoet
If there was no conciousness ...
.... ATS would not exist

Until someone is aware of ATS's existence, ATS doesn't exist. Consciousness does not depend on the existence of ATS, though ATS's existence depends on people's conscious awareness and interaction with it. This same conscious awareness of ATS can cause it's destruction also, through such things as hacker attacks. ATS can try to prevent it's destruction through a little donation box at the top because hacker attacks are too expensive to maintain on ad revenue and traffic alone. If one does not care about ATS's existence, then they wont care about posting at ATS, if someone doesn't care whether ATS is destroyed by hacker attacks then they won't donate either.

If people donate and ATS still falls and is destroyed, it only matters to those that took up the cause to keep ATS alive, and those that set out to destroy ATS. How long ATS matters to that person that took up the cause, once it is gone... will only depend on how long it takes for that person; to find somewhere else to fill the void of want in the person that ATS covered for them, and since ATS is now destroyed in the same scenario, those that set out to destroy ATS will have to fill the want to destroy similar by looking else where.

Will donating prevent these expense attacks? Nope it is just a band-aid, hoping the attackers get bored and o elsewhere. I suppose it would be a good idea to ask why the attackers why they want to destroy ATS... but by replying with a why, would make them vulnerable to prosecution because hacking is illegal. So, in order for ATS to survive without a band-aid for the problem, ATS itself must investigate itself for why someone would want to destroy ATS, and who might that be?

Since consciousness, holds ideals and these ideals are motivators for existing and doing things, then the answer would be that ATS challenges the ideals held by those attacking it. Now one simply has to ask, who's ideals does ATS attack and challenge to the point that they wish ATS to be destroyed. I don't know ATS's enemies, so all I could do is ponder a guess... I am sure ATS itself has a clearer idea who that may be, the motive behind attacks itself is moot since they are based on opposing ideals: ATS existing or ATS not existing as the goal for both sides of the battle... focusing on the who being the only importance in the fight to keep ATS afloat, and those attempting to hide themselves long enough to destroy ATS, is the key to solving the sink or swim situation, while all else floats in the mean time.

I challenge any and all ideals that are held as belief... which means I probably have way more enemies than ATS. Now if ATS's mission statement, "Deny Ignorance" means; do not allow ignorance, or if it means; deny having any... I suppose is left up to debate.

I didn't know things were so dire for ATS. I sure would miss it. If ATS.isn't aware of me do I exist? Its too sad to contemplate.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

consciousness is an effect of existing, the consciousness experienced depends on what the conscious is aware of.

I do not think that is true.

If consciousness is an effect of existing, what effect of existence are you speaking about exactly? What are you feeling, smelling, hearing and observing when you see consciousness? What is the first image that comes to your mind when thinking about it?

Please see ImaFungi's response for why consciousness does not equate to being the body.

It might have been a good response if it took into consideration where, what and how the anesthesia is administered. It is administered to a body and it affects nothing besides the body. If you or IamFungi believe it affects something other than the body, I would have to ask for your reasoning.

In all cases where consciousness needs to be determined, as in medicine, they view various modes and modifications of the body – whether it can speak, whether it can move in a certain way, whether it can acknowledge a question. No such thing as “consciousness” or unconsciousness actually comes into view. The eyes do not see anything other than the body when one becomes conscious or unconscious. So I’m curious as to what effect you are speaking about, and how it does not equate to the body?

a reply to: artistpoet

I dont think consciousness molds matter, if it did we could think anything into an out of existence. We can't think things in and out of existence... just manipulate things we are consciously aware of already pre-existing to come into or go out of existence. We are hackers to everything we are consciously aware of, whether we are a virus or not is an ideology... and if you haven't guessed by now, are something I do not follow but point at as an absurdity that fuels all our problems and energy for things we find problematic.

The inventor doesn't create a problem out of thin air, then puts effort to solve it. The problem itself is debatable as to being a problem, but pre-existing due to something else. So the inventor looks at this "problem" and forms ideas on how to solve it or make it easier and tests these solutions on the problem... if it solves it great, if it doesn't then it doesn't. The problem is when an invention brings more problems to the table than it first set out to solve.

Ex. Henry Ford invented the truck, to solve the problem of not having enough time for our families due to so much work required on the farm. So this invention of the truck intended to make that happen for us, has now turned into something that is debatable as to whether it makes our lives easier... since it has since evolved to allow us to stretch out from the family farm, and has also become a cause spend even more time away from our families.

Whether the truck is a good thing or a bad thing, is left up to an individuals conscious thought to sort based on the ideals they hold for life... when the truck itself is neither good nor bad until we place our ape hands and use our special thumbs to grasp the wheel.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Your post count, stars, flags, trophies, and lighting bolt are a testament to you being here. The amount of them if they matter to you means something to you and others that think they hold meaning. Amass a certain amount of them means your voice carries weight, if it carries enough weight or an argument you put forth does, then ATS will take notice and give you some applause for your contribution. If you are not the sort to seek validation when you post... then none of the above matters.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

consciousness is an effect of existing, the consciousness experienced depends on what the conscious is aware of.

I do not think that is true.

If consciousness is an effect of existing, what effect of existence are you speaking about exactly? What are you feeling, smelling, hearing and observing when you see consciousness? What is the first image that comes to your mind when thinking about it?

My apologies, it should have read as an effect of "life" instead of "existing", because all things that exist do not have life.

a reply to: Aphorism

Have you ever been given anesthesia?

Please answer these questions honestly;

Yes or No, that these words correlate to real objects/systems of matter, and do you recognize that you possess them/are composed of them:

Heart

Fingers

Toes

Ribs

Lungs

Kidneys

Bladder

Nose

Brain

Tongue


Does difference exist? Or is the body an undifferentiable whole?

For the next series of questions please again answer honestly, I am assuming you answered that yes, matter does exist, and yes it has formulated into systems that are different, and yes the body is composed of such matters and systems:

Is the object nose where the object lungs?

Is the object heart where the object toes are?

Is the object brain where the object kidneys are?

Is the object ribs where the object fingers are?



To continue, I will assume you will answer no, considering my infallible argument that; stuff exists, stuff cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, out of the totality of stuff (quantity...and quality) when comparing the stuff to the stuff, stuffs of the stuff is different, different quantities with different qualities orientated in different collections etc. The axiom of which would give great credence to that fact that the stuff, that is the world, and the suns role in it, being stuff, different stuff than the world, and the world being composed of different stuff, and bodies being different bodies, and bodies being composed of stuff, that is not 1 pure partless stuff, but lots of different stuff, that does different stuff.

So we get to the fact that, one of the most important aspects, or the most important aspect, of the nature of some of the stuff that exists, that can arguably, seemingly, 'move itself', is that it can seemingly, arguably 'move itself'. The rationally and intuitively way it is supposed to do this, with great help from being considered one of these collections of stuff myself, ourself; is by 'knowing' it can move, knowing I can move myself, knowing that I must infact move myself, if I desire to keep myself, and my ability to move and my ability to know and my ability to be.

As we hopefully have agreed that the body is composed of parts, that serve different functions, as a car is composed of parts that serve different functions, with some in both cases, more and less necessary for ultimate function (for example a car can lose a headlight and still perform its ultimate function which is move; a human can lose an eye and still move itself). The nature of awareness, of being, of consciousness, is the primal necessity for being, for consciousness, tautologically, as most truths are. Without stuff creating a way for stuff to be a specific collection of stuff, that can 'move by itself' the collection of stuff that it is (this by itself I am referencing is the nature of will, free will, choice, a direct by product, arguably of consciousness, though I horrifically must suppose it is entirely possible for conscious entities at one time or another to be purely conscious but have no control over themselves, a human in vegetative state comes to mind, if barnacles are conscious they come to mind, a being that would be aware, and just along for the ride so to speak, as if it was just your awareness of your awareness, receiving the feed of data from your senses, perhaps you would be able to form thoughts of your own, which would be an act of free will, which I presume you believe thoughts are formed by predominately the toes or hair, but most definitely not likely the brain area, but if you were able to form thoughts or not, in such a situation you would be a consciousness purely along for the ride, and to an extent, to a large extent, we are all familiar with this state to a degree, this is the state that is opposite of free will, that of fate, that of the causal nature of stuff and the laws that it obeys, and the greater and lesser extent you have control over it. A baby has less control over its daily fate than an adult has, you may be tempted to argue that point by saying something about the harsh worker drone system mannn but you would be wrong.

Any way... If I tell you to close your eyes right now and imagine a dog. Imagine a house. Imagine a rainbow. Imagine the moon. imagine a girl. Imagine the color red. Imagine the number 7. Read these words in your head and say this sentence right now in your head while seeing the sentence in your head and recognizing immediately what it means while also still seeing the screen around you and also think about a lake right now and imagine your self diving into that lake and you can also control what happens in that lake because your toes and your hair are objects that have highly sophisticated components, which store memories, and it is where all your sensory data is sent, and you can access this data in memory, and you can process it, this imagining activity I speak of, is a sort of RAM, and as a car has a motor and tires and headlights and radio, and these objects that are different than one another do different things, there is an object in and of your body, that is necessary, for your body to remain functioning, and is one of the most important parts of the ability for your body to remain functioning, and the object I am speaking of is the object and the objects functions which understands what it is reading right now, and it is the object that receives the data from its eyes, and ears, and knows how it is cataloged and what values are associated with the data that is catalogued, and if this object I am speaking to, the object that is the toes and the hair, which does the thinking and knowing and speaking for the human body, and imagining, and this object which is responsible for forcing itself to move, making the choices and decisions, if this object is turned off, via substance, or irreparable damage, than the body will no longer be able to move itself, and begin to start to disappear.

The object in the body and its more immediate functional relations, which receives the sensual data, is aware it is receiving sensual data, is aware what its senses are, is aware how it feels about its senses, is aware of the external world due to its senses, is aware of what in the external world it must due to remain such an existing system, is aware of its ability to move itself, this object and these functions, that are different than the ribs functions, and the kidneys functions, and the fingers functions, is referred to as consciousness. I have been given anesthesia before, I could not say that from the time I was given anesthesia to the time I was aware I was aware again, more than 1 second had passed. To my awareness, which is quite familiar with seconds and minutes, and the continual awareness of passing time, no longer was I aware of anything at all. My awareness of my awareness of my awareness of my awareness had ceased, for time. And then after time, it returned. The body didnt disappear and return. A specific objects - objects, objects functions - objects functions relationship was altered, the functions of objects disappeared. The function of object that disappeared in this instance, is referred to as consciousness. Welcome to planet earth... Sorry not sorry to be rude, this was very annoying for me to have to type out, next time I will use Wiki.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: artistpoet

I dont think consciousness molds matter, if it did we could think anything into an out of existence. We can't think things in and out of existence... just manipulate things we are consciously aware of already pre-existing to come into or go out of existence. We are hackers to everything we are consciously aware of, whether we are a virus or not is an ideology... and if you haven't guessed by now, are something I do not follow but point at as an absurdity that fuels all our problems and energy for things we find problematic.

The inventor doesn't create a problem out of thin air, then puts effort to solve it. The problem itself is debatable as to being a problem, but pre-existing due to something else. So the inventor looks at this "problem" and forms ideas on how to solve it or make it easier and tests these solutions on the problem... if it solves it great, if it doesn't then it doesn't. The problem is when an invention brings more problems to the table than it first set out to solve.

Ex. Henry Ford invented the truck, to solve the problem of not having enough time for our families due to so much work required on the farm. So this invention of the truck intended to make that happen for us, has now turned into something that is debatable as to whether it makes our lives easier... since it has since evolved to allow us to stretch out from the family farm, and has also become a cause spend even more time away from our families.

Whether the truck is a good thing or a bad thing, is left up to an individuals conscious thought to sort based on the ideals they hold for life... when the truck itself is neither good nor bad until we place our ape hands and use our special thumbs to grasp the wheel.

If thoughts are energy waves why couldn't they interact with other energy waves and therefore alter them in some way. According to the "Down the Rabbit Hole." ideology water molecules can be influenced by emotions.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

We can effect things with our mental energy, that 20 some odd watts that our brain puts out is a cause for whatever effect we have on other waves that can be influenced by it. The extent or reach of them typically fell into pseudo science, after belief in it was rooted out by science. Of course science came back and validated this energy with changing light colors or turning them on and off, by making a switch that mimic the waves the brain makes when thinking a color or on and off.

If that color change and on and off actually an effect of our mind? Or is it the cleverness to design something that this mental energy has a repeatable effect on, in the way of a specialized switch geared to these waves?

We are starting a whole new thread with that discussion though... and going off topic.

But since we can consciously direct this energy, what it effects consistently and without a doubt will require more research into it. Some say they can move objects or manifest objects using this energy, and others say bollocks no you can't. Yet another belief based debate altogether. If this focusing of our 20 watts of energy in a specific way does alter something in reality where others can see it learn it and repeat it, then it has value and truth, if others cannot see it and repeat it themselves then it is merely anecdotal or the rantings of a lunatic. If however there is some special way, to focus and consciously manipulate things with this 20 watts... then those that claim it need to share it and the process, and someone that says yes it works for me too, here's an easier way... and more and more experience it, then it becomes a phenomena to challenge what was already accepted which was "you can't" do it.

Does this mean we should give up trying? Not if you are interested in such things, that interest in it gives your life meaning and purpose, those saying it can't be done, so why waste the time trying? Although limiting their experience, by deeming it not important... also invalidates your reason for being and purpose at the same time. So in order to keep ones validity, now feel they need to argue for it to maintain some feeling of validity or purpose in their life, or else abandon it and find something else that validates their existence. When honestly, if the reason for being and doing requires a validation other than ones own... then ones conviction or rationale for doing was questionable to begin with.

If one has to question their own why or reason for being for what they are doing, when another questions it's validity... then obviously they are living an unfulfilled existence or purposeless life and still trying to consciously sort the answers until it makes sense.

I personally see no reason for being other than what one chooses for themselves as the reason for being. The problem of course then is everyone having differing reasons for being, then thinking their reason for being is better than another's for some reason and then discriminate against them from their own intolerance for any other reason for being.

The sad thing is many varied reasons for being can exist together in harmony, but when we take them as the only way to live, and force them onto others we cause conflict. So it's best to live and let live, the ideal is your cake so it's up to you to eat it... asking anyone else if they want a slice is considerate of course, but strapping them to a bottomless chair and rectally feeding it to them when they obviously don't want it is a bit extreme, as extreme as strapping some tnt to ones chest and running into a building killing everyone into regardless of belief of those within is just as extreme if not more.

That's the issue with ideals, when taken to extreme it forms a belief, and when a belief is taken to be a reality... then there is no room for tolerance and understanding for anyone that consciously feels or believes otherwise.

sorry if the topic veered a bit off course.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I've been under anesthesia and have had the same effect, also have had the same effect when meditating. Where was it "you" suppose you "went" during this time of unconsciousness and what is it "you" suppose you "returned" too when conscious again?

not trying to trick you in anyway, just seeing how your answer compares to my own, without reveling my experience first.

Stormdancer777:

Consciousness existed first, and will exist when all else disappears.

Blarneystoner:

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I think the answer is "no".

Here are two quotes that are prime examples of utter confusion and misunderstanding. It beggars my credulity that Blarneystoner can accept the claim that when a tree falls in a forest, and no one is in the forest to hear it, then no sound is produced.

Okay. What if a tree falls and there is a person in the forest near by, but that person is wholly deaf, and has been so since birth. Is there still no sound? Would that person, if sufficiently close enough to the falling tree, feel rather than hear the tree hit the ground?

Let me now tell you why there is sound, but what really irks me with respect to the stance Blarneystoner takes, is that he actually knows why there is still sound, even when there is no one present to hear it. The first thing to point out is that the absence of an observer does not automatically suspend natural physics. Sound is produced by pressure waves, and as the tree falls it produces them. It produces pressure waves firstly by travelling through the air, with bark and pith and twigs snapping, but also when it collides with the floor it produces sound and shockwaves. All the physics still occur regardless of the absence of an hearer. The only time no sound would not be produced is if there was no air to disturb...in other words, a vacuum.

Sound occurs because of perturbations and displacement of air molecules. Blarney...you know this! If you want to remain a contrarian and remain accepting that no sound is produced until there is someone to hear it, then by all means, be contrary.

Stormdancer's claim that consciousness existed first is a very bold claim, and utterly bereft of logic. What does he think consciousness is? He gives no clarification or support, or even a tenuous hypothesis to explain his irrational stance.

MissSmartypants:

Would Roger Penrose's microtubules be that mechanism?

Hammeroff and Penrose's Microtuble Theory presents a good candidate for interface, but I do not believe they have explained the causal circumstance of consciousness creation. My speculated theory or hypothesis seeks to go the very core of the question on how consciousness manifests. I have tried to articulate a very simple perspective of the theory in earlier posts.

We are imbued with consciousness, or rather and more correctly stated, we are put into a conscious state because we have the right apparatus in physical terms, both internally and externally, that is doing its job. That job is to be stimulated and thence to relay a signal for the brain to process.

We perceive ourselves being conscious, and that perception, that quale-rich experience of being conscious, is what we term mind. The Australian philosopher David Chalmers calls the puzzle of consciousness as the 'Hard Problem', and he is not kidding. The Hard Problem asks, how is the brain able to take all the electro-chemical signals and process them into experiences of qualia? The quest for solving that is mankind's next pioneering step, and it is to my mind, a very essential one.