Leaderboard

I emphasis the importance of these features because: Awareness - A critical feature of consciousness. Any definition, argument, theory, or something like that has to include this one or else none can be understood or defined without awareness to do so. Interfacing - A point between awareness and body, which an interfacing process occurs in order for an awareness to be aware of and perform expression. Expression - Behaviours that demonstrate or indicate interfacing and awareness. There could be varying degrees in each of these features. I have refined the diagram to include three possibilities: Top-to-bottom Consciousness: Machine-alike or engineering components-alike. Bottom-to-Top Consciousness: Emergence. Altogether is Consciousness: Similar to Bottom to up but without an indication of direction (e.g. up or down, just as it is) TBH, I do not know for certain as which one of these possibility is correct or not, only offer these as possibilities.

That's simply false. Unexplained refers to something that at any particular time, we lack the observational data to explain properly...eg:There was a time when we lacked the knowledge to explain the forces controlling the Sun, or even the fact that the Sun is simply another star. Dictionary: not described or made clear; unknown."the reason for her summons was as yet unexplained" not accounted for or attributable to an identified cause."cot death is still an unexplained phenomenon" Supernatural is defined as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.[1] This term is attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods, and spirits. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception. extract: The supernatural is featured in folklore and religious contexts,[4] but can also feature as an explanation in more secular contexts, as in the cases of superstitions or belief in the paranormal. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So in essence something "unexplained" may still be capable of being defined as scientific and by the laws of physics, whereas something that we define as "supernatural" is simply an unscientific application of myth and scientific ignorance. Examples: Some reported sightings that are generally referred to as UFO's/UAP's, are unexplained events...nothing more, nothing less. We have evidence of "something" that lacks the evidence to specify what it is or isn't. Supernatural on the other hand [as quoted from the WIKI link] "The philosophy of naturalism contends that all phenomena are scientifically explicable and nothing exists beyond the natural world, and as such approaches supernatural claims with skepticism".

I like that man's approach. Here is another article I wonder. Maybe it does, as it does to a forest. But that would be a very loosely-connected network, while; thus, a low-grade consciousness operating in the background of all the individual tightly-wired (high-grade) consciounesses of its individual members. Hon Kong's or Iran's national consciousness might be of a higher grade, with more and tighter inter-connections among its "cells". It's much easier to think about consciousness as a process than as a thing; it's something neural networks do, rather than something they have. Like vision or language, we tend to use the short-hand description of a complex activity as a single noun, because don't have collective verbs.

There are now three concurrent threads that turn on the meaning of 'nothing'. This is after quite a few such debates here in the past. Not bad for a concept that "has no existence" I think we are generally agreed that and since we are having so much trouble with that definition I am offering an alternative approach as apposed to the getout of declaring it nonsense. @Conscious Energy has been trying to express nothing mathematically as 'zero' but does not seem to have the mathematical sophistication to do this. No offence meant CE. This approach, like most in mathematics, is best done in set theory and then we can employ the empty or null set. Beacuse mathematicians employ the null set to construct the numbers we get a hint of something we can do with nothing. This bring us to my spark plug and also my litre box, because we can quantify nothing mathematically. That is we can order different nothings as larger or smaller than each other. In some cases we can make actual measurements. In the case of the spark plug there could be simply air or there could be inert gas or there could be complete vacuum between the electrodes. The point is there is the 'spark plug gap' which is conceptually composed of nothing at all. And we can quantify this gap. Furthermore if they are actually touching there is nothing between them! Nothing is indeed a strange beast; as so often happens fact turns out stranger than our imagination (ie fiction), which is why we have (and probably always will have) so much yet to discover. 🙂