External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. Ironically even into a pair of eyes. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain.

That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an accident but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. Consciousness is at the very basis of our existence and existential inquiry. It's also very puzzling. Most people don't realise that's what the soul refers to and the philosophical basis for religion. It's really the basis for the first questions. The observation that you exist. Many people miss it. People didn't know how to explain these things more precisely. I'll read a religious text that'll casually mention a flaming apricot flying by and it's obvious that probably referred to a meteorite.

The soul is not only compatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

Another scary progression is science denying the human soul while Hollywood anthropomorphises cars and the average leftist especially just gobbles it up. I can't say I believe in Satan but that sure does look like Satan's work.

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. Ironically even into a pair of eyes. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an accident but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. Consciousness is at the very basis of our existence and existential inquiry. It's also very puzzling. Most people don't realise that's what the soul refers to and the philosophical basis for religion. It's really the basis for the first questions. The observation that you exist. Many people miss it. People didn't know how to explain these things more precisely. I'll read a religious text that'll casually mention a flaming apricot flying by and it's obvious that probably referred to a meteorite.

The soul is not only compatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

Another scary progressive is science denying the human soul while Hollywood anthropomorphises cars and the average leftist especially just gobbles it up. I can't say I believe in Satan but that sure does look like Satan's work.

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. Ironically even into a pair of eyes. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. Consciousness is at the very basis of our existence and existential inquiry. It's also very puzzling. Most people don't realise that's what the soul refers to and the philosophical basis for religion. It's really the basis for the first questions. The observation that you exist. Many people miss it. People didn't know how to explain these things more precisely. I'll read a religious text that'll casually mention a flaming apricot flying by and it's obvious that probably referred to a meteorite.

The soul is not only compatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

Another scary progressive is science denying the human soul while Hollywood anthropomorphises cars and the average leftist especially just gobbles it up. I can't say I believe in Satan but that sure does look like Satan's work.

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. Ironically even into a pair of eyes. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

Another scary progressive is science denying the human soul while Hollywood anthropomorphises cars and the average leftist especially just gobbles it up. I can't say I believe in Satan but that sure does look like Satan's work.

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

Another scary progressive is science denying the human soul while Hollywood anthropomorphises cars and the average leftist especially just gobbles it up. I can't say I believe in Satan but that sure does look like Satan's work.

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

Another scary progression is science denying the human soul while Hollywood anthropomorphises cars and the average leftist especially just gobbles it up.

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

Another scary progressive is science denying the human soul while Hollywood anthropomorphises cars and the average leftist especially just gobbles it up.

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It interacting with the physical is not the same as it being physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It interacting with the physical is not the same as it being physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It interacting with the physical is not the same as it being physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It interacting with the physical is not the same as it being physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It interacting with the physical is not the same as it being physical.

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else?

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?

External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?

You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else?

You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:

The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.

What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain. That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.

Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an action but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.

There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.

Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. The soul is not only incompatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.

If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.

You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect.