I suppose where this falls down is the impossibility of measuring consciousness. Both our theories of it being fluid vs fragile are equally valid, but I don't know if we'll ever be able to prove either, since I think, due to the nature of the experiment, the result is impossible to observe. Unless anyone could come up with some hypothetical tests?

Quote from: Sinister Clock on September 05, 2015, 08:38:03 PM
I suppose where this falls down is the impossibility of measuring consciousness. Both our theories of it being fluid vs fragile are equally valid, but I don't know if we'll ever be able to prove either, since I think, due to the nature of the experiment, the result is impossible to observe. Unless anyone could come up with some hypothetical tests?

that is very true.

oh, also, i forgot point number 4, the meaning of god that you analysed previously above....

4. i am neutral about god, and the only views/opinions/thoughts about the nature of god are that god is not a simple thing, but rather a bigger thing than what we might imagine.
in short, god could be the forces of nature, the same nature that started the big bang, the same nature that shaped the universe and established the laws of the physics, laws of gravity, attraction, planetary movements, vortexes, light and dark matter, etc etc.
same nature that created all the organisms and bacteria that evolved into proto-zoa (first creatures) that evolved even further and became fish, sea-creatures, and eventually some of them divided into other genealogical groups and became reptiles, mammals and various animals, while other lifeforms became plants, and everything fell into place, thus creating a very large and self-sufficient eco system.

in short, nature and the laws of the physics/universe could be considered a part of/god.

that is all.