[smart]

Plants do not have brains.

Plants do HAVE microtubules, just like us.  What we don't know however is whether plants possess gamma waves.  Discarding the possibility of plants to possess protoconsciousness is unscientific.

[Kryptid]

That is irrelevant to the OP.

It's quite relevant to your claim that a head transplant somehow demonstrates that consciousness is independent from the brain. How can an experiment which keeps the brain demonstrate that consciousness is independent of it? You would somehow need to show that you can retain an organism's consciousness while somehow eliminating a brain from the picture (or at least its functionality).

The purpose of a head/brain transplant is to demonstrate the "atomic singularity" of human consciousness as a fundamental aspect of life.

How? I don't see how your argument follows.

Without consciousness there is no life.

What kind of experiment do you propose to detect consciousness in bacteria?

The brain is merely a evolutionary quantum computer to transcode the atomic singularity of consciousness into neuroholographic memory.

What is an "atomic singularity"?

[11dim]

Consciousness=information exchange

[smart]

What kind of experiment do you propose to detect consciousness in bacteria?

I guess to detect consciousness in bacteria we would need a robust method to measure coherent energy transfer in bacterial microtubules.

What is an "atomic singularity"?

I define the atomic singularity of human consciousness as the subjective experience of life. Consciousness is subjective experience independent from the physical (atomic) properties of a living organism.

[Kryptid]

I guess to detect consciousness in bacteria we would need a robust method to measure coherent energy transfer in bacterial microtubules.

And what experiment could demonstrate that energy transfer in microtubules is the cause of consciousness?

I define the atomic singularity of human consciousness as the subjective experience of life. Consciousness is subjective experience independent from the physical (atomic) properties of a living organism.

So what do the words "atomic" and "singularity" have to do with it? I've never heard any such term used in scientific literature.

[smart]

So what do the words "atomic" and "singularity" have to do with it? I've never heard any such term used in scientific literature.

The quantum (atomic) singularity of life is the ubiquity of consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_singularity

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70767.0

[smart]

Without consciousness there's no life.

Without life there's no free will.

[Kryptid]

The quantum (atomic) singularity of life is the ubiquity of consciousness.

According to what peer-reviewed scientific study?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_singularity

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70767.0

I don't see anywhere on that Wikipedia page where the term "singularity" has anything to do with consciousness. It seems as though you have invented the term yourself.

Also, you didn't explain how to experimentally demonstrate a correlation or causation between microtubule energy transfer and consciousness.

[puppypower]

One way to approach the question of what is consciousness is, is to first eliminate what it is not. We know computers are not conscious. We will use them as the litmus test for elimination.

Computers can do math, employ logic, and even use language, therefore these three things are not elements of consciousness, since computers can do these things very well and they are not conscious. This is not to say human consciousness cannot make use of these things. However, these things cannot be the foundation of consciousness or else computers would be conscious just by doing these things. Consciousness is not connected to memory since computers have plenty of memory and this does not make them conscious.

If we could transfer the memory of a human to a computer, as well as their ability to reason and use language and math, they would be a computer, since this is not foundation for consciousness. Computers have these thingsand they are not conscious.

[smart]

According to what peer-reviewed scientific study?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/

I don't see anywhere on that Wikipedia page where the term "singularity" has anything to do with consciousness. It seems as though you have invented the term yourself.

I didn't invented the term "quantum singularity". I only derived the term "atomic singularity" from this concept, because consciousness is immaterial and essentially a non-local (quantum-like) phenomenon.

Also, you didn't explain how to experimentally demonstrate a correlation or causation between microtubule energy transfer and consciousness.

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25232047

[snorkfort]

Without consciousness there's no life.

Without life there's no free will.

Living organisms, including humans, do not have free will. There is a vast amount of data and very robust arguments supporting the notion that humans do not have free will. Life can exist without consciousness, and without free will. Your attempt to reconcile science with religion is biased and unscientific. The essential principle of the scientific method is to eliminate bias. Approaching scientific topics with a spiritual agenda means your arguments and thought processes are inherently biased, so you will consistently veer far from the truth. You really need to understand the concept of "confirmation bias".

[puppypower]

Without consciousness there's no life.

Without life there's no free will.

Living organisms, including humans, do not have free will. There is a vast amount of data and very robust arguments supporting the notion that humans do not have free will. Life can exist without consciousness, and without free will. Your attempt to reconcile science with religion is biased and unscientific. The essential principle of the scientific method is to eliminate bias. Approaching scientific topics with a spiritual agenda means your arguments and thought processes are inherently biased, so you will consistently veer far from the truth. You really need to understand the concept of "confirmation bias".

There is a mistaken notion for what free will means in religion; original intent of the concept. Animals act with natural instinct. Human free will has to do with the ability to act apart from natural instincts. Free will allows for artificial and unnatural instincts. Free will allows human to make choices apart from the DNA, which underlies our natural  human instinct. This is why humans were considered higher than animals, and why many religions often repressed natural  instinct with will power; celibacy. Flowing with instinct requires no free will.

For example, in modern culture there is a secular gospel that there is no difference between male and female. This is based on collective choice and free will, since male and female are different by an entire chromosome; X or Y. There is a large difference in DNA. This secular orientation is not consistent with DNA and therefore it is not consistent with natural instinct. It is a conditioned social choice, that is made apart from the DNA and natural instinct. It is an aspect of free will and choice. It may still have an epigenetic induction on the DNA. 

The reason this is possible is we have two centers of consciousness. One center is old; inner self, and is connected to natural instinct and the DNA. The other center is relatively new in terms of evolution. The ancient concept of Satan being the binarius is connected to the two centers and the alternate choices that can be induced by the secondary center; departure from natural law which was created by God. 

Free will is not a concept that is applied to animals. Animals tend to remain within instinct, unless domesticated by humans to be unnatural and/or artificial. One can teach a dog to kill for sport. In this case, the human becomes the virtual secondary center for the dog, to allow the dog such choices, which over time can create epigenetic changes so it looks natural to the naked eye, but which no gene is ever found. 

[Kryptid]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/

When I say peer-reviewed, I mean something that has passed peer review and has become an accepted part of modern scientific literature. That certainly isn't the case for all the articles on that website, which also has a paper called "Cosmic design from a Buddhist perspective" (a paper which denies the Big Bang theory). This paper you have linked is little more than a discussion on philosophy.

I didn't invented the term "quantum singularity". I only derived the term "atomic singularity" from this concept, because consciousness is immaterial and essentially a non-local (quantum-like) phenomenon.

I know you didn't invent the term "quantum singularity". I was talking about the term "atomic singularity".

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25232047

So which part of the paper describes a method to detect the presence of consciousness? Not energy transfer, but consciousness specifically.

[smart]

When I say peer-reviewed, I mean something that has passed peer review and has become an accepted part of modern scientific literature. That certainly isn't the case for all the articles on that website, which also has a paper called "Cosmic design from a Buddhist perspective" (a paper which denies the Big Bang theory). This paper you have linked is little more than a discussion on philosophy.

That website (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) by the way is a reference for modern scientific litterature. And notice no mention of retraction do appear. And when we discuss on the nature of consciousness, you are expected to dive into the philosophy of science.

I know you didn't invent the term "quantum singularity". I was talking about the term "atomic singularity".

Remember that imagination is more important than knowledge.

So which part of the paper describes a method to detect the presence of consciousness? Not energy transfer, but consciousness specifically.

The feasibility of coherent energy transfer in microtubules is evidence that consciousness is a quantum-like phenomenon.
 

[Kryptid]

That website (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) by the way is a reference for modern scientific litterature. And notice no mention of retraction do appear. And when we discuss on the nature of consciousness, you are expected to dive into the philosophy of science.

When you do actual science, you are expected to be able to make predictions and then test those predictions by using experiments and/or other forms of observation. Philosophy alone does not do that. Without falsifiable predictions, experimentation and observation, you have no science. What falsifiable prediction or experiment did that paper suggest which allows its claims to be tested for scientifically?

Remember that imagination is more important than knowledge.

Maybe in some things (writing novels, for example), but I sure would not want scientists telling me that their claims came from their imagination instead of time-tested,repeated experimentation.

The feasibility of coherent energy transfer in microtubules is evidence that consciousness is a quantum-like phenomenon.

Restating your claim is not the same as providing evidence for it. I want scientifically-acquired evidence that coherent energy transfer in microtubules has any kind of cause-and-effect relationship with consciousness.

[snorkfort]

Without consciousness there's no life.

Without life there's no free will.

Living organisms, including humans, do not have free will. There is a vast amount of data and very robust arguments supporting the notion that humans do not have free will. Life can exist without consciousness, and without free will. Your attempt to reconcile science with religion is biased and unscientific. The essential principle of the scientific method is to eliminate bias. Approaching scientific topics with a spiritual agenda means your arguments and thought processes are inherently biased, so you will consistently veer far from the truth. You really need to understand the concept of "confirmation bias".

There is a mistaken notion for what free will means in religion; original intent of the concept. Animals act with natural instinct. Human free will has to do with the ability to act apart from natural instincts. Free will allows for artificial and unnatural instincts. Free will allows human to make choices apart from the DNA, which underlies our natural  human instinct. This is why humans were considered higher than animals, and why many religions often repressed natural  instinct with will power; celibacy. Flowing with instinct requires no free will.

For example, in modern culture there is a secular gospel that there is no difference between male and female. This is based on collective choice and free will, since male and female are different by an entire chromosome; X or Y. There is a large difference in DNA. This secular orientation is not consistent with DNA and therefore it is not consistent with natural instinct. It is a conditioned social choice, that is made apart from the DNA and natural instinct. It is an aspect of free will and choice. It may still have an epigenetic induction on the DNA. 

The reason this is possible is we have two centers of consciousness. One center is old; inner self, and is connected to natural instinct and the DNA. The other center is relatively new in terms of evolution. The ancient concept of Satan being the binarius is connected to the two centers and the alternate choices that can be induced by the secondary center; departure from natural law which was created by God. 

Free will is not a concept that is applied to animals. Animals tend to remain within instinct, unless domesticated by humans to be unnatural and/or artificial. One can teach a dog to kill for sport. In this case, the human becomes the virtual secondary center for the dog, to allow the dog such choices, which over time can create epigenetic changes so it looks natural to the naked eye, but which no gene is ever found. 

Sounds like you know nothing about scientific experiments regarding free will, most of which support the notion that humans do NOT have free will. There is absolutely no evidence that human behaviour is fundamentally different from animals. Animals also make decisions and occasionally decide not to mate. The important question is whether we actually have conscious control over our decisions, and most of the data indicates that we do not.

[snorkfort]

That website (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) by the way is a reference for modern scientific litterature. And notice no mention of retraction do appear. And when we discuss on the nature of consciousness, you are expected to dive into the philosophy of science.

When you do actual science, you are expected to be able to make predictions and then test those predictions by using experiments and/or other forms of observation. Philosophy alone does not do that. Without falsifiable predictions, experimentation and observation, you have no science. What falsifiable prediction or experiment did that paper suggest which allows its claims to be tested for scientifically?

Remember that imagination is more important than knowledge.

Maybe in some things (writing novels, for example), but I sure would not want scientists telling me that there claims came from their imagination instead of time-tested,repeated experimentation.

The feasibility of coherent energy transfer in microtubules is evidence that consciousness is a quantum-like phenomenon.

Restating your claim is not the same as providing evidence for it. I want scientifically-acquired evidence that coherent energy transfer in microtubules has any kind of cause-and-effect relationship with consciousness.

I wouldn't bother trying to reason with tkadm30. He doesn't understand even the basic principles of science, and he thinks that he can reconcile unsubstantiated spiritual beliefs with science simply through wacky philosophising.

[smart]

I wouldn't bother trying to reason with tkadm30. He doesn't understand even the basic principles of science, and he thinks that he can reconcile unsubstantiated spiritual beliefs with science simply through wacky philosophising.

You seem basically unreceptive of anyone ideas on this forum. I guess you're an hypocrite when you claim to believe in the media diversity. You should probably go away now.
 

[puppypower]

Without consciousness there's no life.

Without life there's no free will.

Living organisms, including humans, do not have free will. There is a vast amount of data and very robust arguments supporting the notion that humans do not have free will. Life can exist without consciousness, and without free will. Your attempt to reconcile science with religion is biased and unscientific. The essential principle of the scientific method is to eliminate bias. Approaching scientific topics with a spiritual agenda means your arguments and thought processes are inherently biased, so you will consistently veer far from the truth. You really need to understand the concept of "confirmation bias".

There is a mistaken notion for what free will means in religion; original intent of the concept. Animals act with natural instinct. Human free will has to do with the ability to act apart from natural instincts. Free will allows for artificial and unnatural instincts. Free will allows human to make choices apart from the DNA, which underlies our natural  human instinct. This is why humans were considered higher than animals, and why many religions often repressed natural  instinct with will power; celibacy. Flowing with instinct requires no free will.

For example, in modern culture there is a secular gospel that there is no difference between male and female. This is based on collective choice and free will, since male and female are different by an entire chromosome; X or Y. There is a large difference in DNA. This secular orientation is not consistent with DNA and therefore it is not consistent with natural instinct. It is a conditioned social choice, that is made apart from the DNA and natural instinct. It is an aspect of free will and choice. It may still have an epigenetic induction on the DNA. 

The reason this is possible is we have two centers of consciousness. One center is old; inner self, and is connected to natural instinct and the DNA. The other center is relatively new in terms of evolution. The ancient concept of Satan being the binarius is connected to the two centers and the alternate choices that can be induced by the secondary center; departure from natural law which was created by God. 

Free will is not a concept that is applied to animals. Animals tend to remain within instinct, unless domesticated by humans to be unnatural and/or artificial. One can teach a dog to kill for sport. In this case, the human becomes the virtual secondary center for the dog, to allow the dog such choices, which over time can create epigenetic changes so it looks natural to the naked eye, but which no gene is ever found. 

Sounds like you know nothing about scientific experiments regarding free will, most of which support the notion that humans do NOT have free will. There is absolutely no evidence that human behaviour is fundamentally different from animals. Animals also make decisions and occasionally decide not to mate. The important question is whether we actually have conscious control over our decisions, and most of the data indicates that we do not.

I was using the original definition of free will which is connected to making choices apart from natural instinct. The ancient people, at the start of civilization, were not that far removed from natural instinct and could make this differentiation due to observing the changing times. The reason this was possible is humans had developed a secondary center of consciousness; ego, which could make choices separate from the primary center of natural instinct; inner self. Science has made up its own definition of free will without control standards for natural human instincts and for human consciousness.

In another post, I addressed consciousness, based on what it is not. Computers are not conscious. My iPad is not conscious, even if Siri can talk, answer questions, suggest restaurants, and fetch things and send emails.  Computers use memory, math, logic and language. They can output audio and video content, and can even control devices like robots and automatons, but they are still not conscious. None of things are preconditions for consciousness or else computers would be conscious by virtue of their expertise in all these attributes. Conscious choice is not a hardware issue, per se. Hardware, on theater hand, is the basis for many science studies. They bark up the oak tree and conclude the Koala Bear is not there and is therefore a myth.

Having sex for procreation or with a blowup doll, will look the same at the level of brain scans. But only one of the two is based on the choices of natural instinct. These may not be easy to differentiate at the brain hardware level. It requires definition based on a standard. In the philosophy of relative morality and choices there is no distinction between natural and unnatural, therefore there is no free will, since there is no software standard. This is an artifact of the atheist religion, which does the opposite of anything that western religion has set forth. It is tries to show free will and choice, relative to the religious standard, by doing the opposite. Religion becomes the standard for choices. If you were to do a brain scan it will look like a religious expression, so there is no appearance of free choice.

Free will and choice is based more on software than hardware, Brain software is better observed from within your own brain via consciousness; introspection and self reflection in the first person. I can install different software into a computer, that has different functionality. All may use the same computer resources. One may not be able to tell the differences in the software, based on looking at current flow through the mother board or how the hard drive behaves, since these are not part of the software These are a secondary aspect that is not part of the consciousness package other than as clothes and makeup. It is not part of the naked consciousness.

[smart]

Restating your claim is not the same as providing evidence for it. I want scientifically-acquired evidence that coherent energy transfer in microtubules has any kind of cause-and-effect relationship with consciousness.

You should read on microtubules dynamics. The role and function of MTs in consciousness has been established by Hameroff et al. (1994)
See: http://hameroff.com/sites/default/files/Quantum%20Coher%20in%20Microtub%20A%20Neural%20Basis%20for%20Emergent%20Consc%20JCS%201994.pdf