That probably requires a whole essay. To me it's self evident that I exist and that I can differentiate myself from the rest of reality (or what I perceive to be reality). Can I prove to anyone else that I am real...that is another argument altogether without going into a solipsist line of reasoning.
Is a virus alive? That is up for debate. It's probably a bad example. A better question would be what is consciesness? In fact since you stated that "there is no evidence that consciousness exists either" a better starting point would have been to ask you what is consciousness to you to make sure that we are referring to the same concept.
All life is aware of itself through electrical stimulation within its own physiology. If all life is conscious then it is redundant to use them term interchangeably with other concepts such as free will.
You can place a plant in a pot and it will believe that its roots taking the shape of the pot it is its own free will. Same applies to humans. You can place a human in our world and believe that his choices and his and not of the pot that he exists.
Then we are talking about different concepts. To me reacting to stimuli from the enviroment (regardless if the source of it is external or external) hardly qualifies as being aware of one's self. To go beyond a "simple" electrical reaction an entity needs to be able to form concepts or abstractions from the perceived reality to the point that it can say "I am this" "That is that" and so forth. An argument can be made that most of the actions of the majority of humanity does not satisfy this condition. In that sense if you cannot determine what reality is (including one's self) then you are a slave to that reality and therfore have no free will.
By gathering knowldege of reality a conscience entity can obtain a degree of freedom to act upon that reality but there is a limit to that freedom. The more we know the more we are aware of our ignorance.
However stating that the existence of consciousness cannot be proven is kind of a stretch. The fact we are having this conversation implies that at least one of us is "real" and can respond to abstract notions. Unless if we are both just a couple of sofisticated AI.
That probably requires a whole essay. To me it's self evident that I exist and that I can differentiate myself from the rest of reality (or what I perceive to be reality). Can I prove to anyone else that I am real...that is another argument altogether without going into a solipsist line of reasoning.
He's playing a language game. He's doesn't actually know what he means.
all life knows that it exists due to the fact that anything alive communicated within itself with electrical signals.
Being aware of one's existence is pretty much the definition of consciousness.
so all life is conscious?
is a virus conscious that gets activated when it touched another cell after being dormant for months?
if not, why not?
Is a virus alive? That is up for debate. It's probably a bad example. A better question would be what is consciesness? In fact since you stated that "there is no evidence that consciousness exists either" a better starting point would have been to ask you what is consciousness to you to make sure that we are referring to the same concept.
All life is aware of itself through electrical stimulation within its own physiology. If all life is conscious then it is redundant to use them term interchangeably with other concepts such as free will.
You can place a plant in a pot and it will believe that its roots taking the shape of the pot it is its own free will. Same applies to humans. You can place a human in our world and believe that his choices and his and not of the pot that he exists.
Then we are talking about different concepts. To me reacting to stimuli from the enviroment (regardless if the source of it is external or external) hardly qualifies as being aware of one's self. To go beyond a "simple" electrical reaction an entity needs to be able to form concepts or abstractions from the perceived reality to the point that it can say "I am this" "That is that" and so forth. An argument can be made that most of the actions of the majority of humanity does not satisfy this condition. In that sense if you cannot determine what reality is (including one's self) then you are a slave to that reality and therfore have no free will.
By gathering knowldege of reality a conscience entity can obtain a degree of freedom to act upon that reality but there is a limit to that freedom. The more we know the more we are aware of our ignorance.
However stating that the existence of consciousness cannot be proven is kind of a stretch. The fact we are having this conversation implies that at least one of us is "real" and can respond to abstract notions. Unless if we are both just a couple of sofisticated AI.