Marcello,

I agree with you that we are just doing philosophical chit chat but I think it is better doing than doing mindless experimentalistic scientistic measuring chit chat.  

A bunch of scientists really scrutinized with scientific tests the doing oft Uri Geller.  After passing all their tests , he told the scientists that he had faked all of it, that it was slight of hand, guesses, and luck. The scientists involved refused to believe him.

I am not in anyway attacking you personally but only criticizing the scientistic philosophical critic you have made here.  I only briefly look at your own scientific work and I can only admire it personally.  It is more empirical and down to earth than most work in that domain.

I'd equal 'living' with 'showing metabolic activity'. No presumptions about the amount of metabolic activity made.

'Consciousness' is different: where do you draw the line between consciousness and 'mere reflexes'? Science is continuously redefining this line... OK, without a brain consciousness is hard to imagine. But how many nerve or brain cells are required to develop consciousness?

Life is existence which is characterised by active metabolism (i.e., chemical changes in tissue consisted of anabolisn and catabolism)-  present in animals, plants, fungi, etc. Consciousness  usually  dénotes something that occures with the perceptive intentional  activity, distinctive from instinctive or authomatic activity.  In this context conscious  content associates with voluntary action. Kind regards

J. Shashi Kiran,

Scientists can do science because they are conscious.  Doing science is within consciousness.   But although science implicitly assume consciousness, is within consciousness, it cannot know anything about consciousness.  This is the story of an eye not seeing itself.  So if you look at the content of your visual field, you will not see your eye there although it is your eye that is seeing.   So you cannot see consciousness within science.  If it is not there, it is just because the whole of science is within it.  Where there is life, there is consciousness of a living being.  My life is my consciousness and our species implicitly assume that all living creature have a consciousness related to the type of body activity they engage.  We are built that way. We do not need to be told this, we are born like that.  We instinctively deal with inanimate object differently than with  animals or other humans.  We distinguish the living from the non living directly.  We have to remember than science is objective.  Objectiivity by definition cannot know what a subject is.  It is the knowledge of a subject that is objective and in this knowledge there is no place for subjects.  So a subject can be objective but objectivity can say nothing about a subject since it belong to a subject as a tool. 

Often questions need to be poised in a way to have possible answers that are consistent with advancing knowledge.  Research gate allow us to ask questions and I have responded to several, or better participated to conversations of the methodological/philosophical kind.  It is important to poise questions indeed but not out of a simple curiosity. Sashi is asking a question that is being answered by all those who are actively working on it.  On life on Earth its origin its features and the attempts to produce life in laboratory there are thousand of researchers involved.  We must not make  simply a chit chat about it.  Please, like me, read more about it and be in awe of the extraordinary advances made in the field.  Often people simply wish to argue ideological/ religious principles such as defending the old 'vitalism' or trying to define life from a methaphysical perspective instead of a scientific one.  Plenty of hard science there.  Similar situation for 'consciousness'.  Life and consciousness are clearly state of matter in this Universe and if anybody thinks otherwise, the research gate is not the place to chat about it.  As for life, consciousness studies are ongoing in the broad field of 'Neuroscience" which these days include psychology and even the good clarifying side of neurophilosophy.  It is important to set questions and indicate what would take to be able to give an answer.  Questions with no possible answers are simply non-questions for our intellects.  Meaningless questions abound. For example what is the intrinsic value of a stone?  what is the religious belief of a leaf?  what is the feeling of a star? what is the mass of a thought? etc etc.  Meanigless unless somebody will indicate how to prove any answer about these questions right tor wrong.  I suspect that rational questions (sceintific  or philosophical) are not of the same nature as 'life experience questions' such as Who am ;  what should I do;  why the world does not like me;  why this earthquake hit me?  Why me? etc etc.

The art of asking sensible questions is just as important as answering them!  

After agreeing with of Mollayeva and Dreher, I would like to point out that a very consistent foundation of this issue can be found in:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/development-mind.pdf

Interesting historical piece, not too well known in modern neuroscience. I am really referring to experimental sciences rather than philosophical essays , in this case of a rather ancient 1800 philosophical movements I guess was Marxism.  I think we can do better in modern Neuroscience.

I'd wonder if anyone has separated the metabolism from the sensory input and then from the processing of sensory input. I'd (very amateurishly) presume that they are separable in the first place. Then I would consider a person under "normal" circumstances, as in a standard healthy person.

Then consider a person in a complete brain-deactivated coma with essentially no processing feedback between the processor and the machine, e.g. without medical intervention they would die. This isn't just sensory input deprivation as in sight and smell; the bodily functions for breathing, blood flow etc would cease.

Then consider someone who has awareness of self, e.g. an active brain, but no sensory input - no touch, sight, pain, etc. What would those differences be? There are studies on allergy reactions that relate the psychological system to the immune system in terms sensory feedback. You can't cut off the feedback loop in the sensor system, for example a neural learning feedback loop, without magnifying the inherent noise in the system. Perhaps to be conscious in terms that our body can accept, we need to be connected to that feedback loop, or we go crazy to a point of system overload and ultimately system failure.

 I couldn't begin to guess how to ethically test them but that seems like what you'd need to work with as a starting point. I think you could work out the sensory feedback minus awareness of self, but I don't know if that is germane to your question if you can answer the first 3 variations.

Or I could consider searching for explanations in Biochemistry and Biophysics, which can explain Neurological process, or, for more rigorous systems of knowledge, study how 'being conscious' takes place, by referring to Quantum Mechanics and (General) Theory of  Relativity, both in the foundations of  Biochemistry and Biophysics; or finally I could realize that I am reasoning as one of personages of Voltaire, and the World is "constructed" hierarchically, and consequently there are different levels of abstractions, corresponding to different levels of reality; ... or might be, I could be convinced that reductionism is a valid deductive syllogism (or not, because syllogisms were created around 300 BC by some Ancient Greek...).

I understand that 'being conscious' is a process with many dimensions, and Neuroscience deals  with one of them. But on the other hand, brain is compose by neurons, groups of them and their relations (including functional), but the brain is not a neuron, and  Consciousness is not a brain.

I simply repeat that amateurs should not converse about things of which you have no real knowledge while  are taught at first year courses at appropriate Unis.  Science and research are serious matters and should be treated as such. Unless questions and answers are at the suitable level are not expected to fill these spaces please.

As of today, science cannot explain 'energy', it only understands its existence based on its transformation from one form to another. Similarly, we experience our consciousness but neuroscience cannot explain its origination in the brain. These are thought provoking questions which amateurs are not allowed to ask just because experienced scientists cannot answer them. Trying asking this question, what is energy? You will get a lot of answers but not 'what is energy?'. Over the years science has left these simple questions in order to answer the most complicated ones, so today if someone is ready to ask these basic questions, I don't think its a problem. We yet do not know how anaesthetics work on our brain and body, but so many people get anesthetized everyday, this is the absurdity of science.

When energy becomes conscious?

Brain consciousness: do you know Nicolas Fraisse? 

How does 'being alive' (or Life) different from 'being conscious' (or Consciousness) ?

It depends upon the definitions. I define consciousness as negation, and negation occurs in multiple forms such as rejection and separation that indicates there are two unities involved in a struggle or preservation of their unity. Negation is both physical and spiritual. Life is defined as a gestalt of multiple unities, and under this definition, the earth is both alive and conscious. This definition does not include self-consciousness.

Of all comments juts above Tatyana is the only one that appears to place back some sense. All the others my learned colleagues are chit chat, walking around with vague words with outdated metaphysical burdens.  If possible in a scientific thinking indicate how could you test and measure what you are stating something about.

Nicolas Fraisse, like his grand-mother, could/can mentally leave his physical body during the day, and in these conditions mentally visit places (e.g. at 50 km from his physical body) to observe what really happened/happens there. He has been exposed to scientific experiments in the presence of a bailiff. An experiment involving 100 choice tests has been outlined in the book indicated above. No chit chat...  

Perhaps somebody is watching you at home, without you being aware of it!

Cheers

That's what I summarized Marcello. At least what I intended was to suggest how to observe variation. To be fair It's the kind of question that begs open discussion though. Nothing wrong with dialogue in that sense.

Marcello,

I agree with you that we are just doing philosophical chit chat but I think it is better doing than doing mindless experimentalistic scientistic measuring chit chat.  

A bunch of scientists really scrutinized with scientific tests the doing oft Uri Geller.  After passing all their tests , he told the scientists that he had faked all of it, that it was slight of hand, guesses, and luck. The scientists involved refused to believe him.

I am not in anyway attacking you personally but only criticizing the scientistic philosophical critic you have made here.  I only briefly look at your own scientific work and I can only admire it personally.  It is more empirical and down to earth than most work in that domain.

A good balance between experimental science and clear imaginative thinking is always the best of course.  But eventually only experimental evidence can give some degree of certainty.  

Philosophy can set some advanced questions but experimental science only can answer. So not sure which alternative you would propose.  

For Uri Geller was sufficient to debunk him by the most famous skeptic. If many scientists are gullible  and not enough skeptics they simply are not very good scientists.

I am also not agains chit chat as long as we realise we are doing that and sometime rediscovering the wheel (which is fine).  But no real discoveries this way, only some personal clarifications.  Being aware that others have already gone through the same passages at least give a sense of history of where we are.  

Often my criticism is that reading some of the questions and answers is as if  for some is the first time they think about the problems and venture in giving very very naive answers.  In Research gate we should do better. I am not working on consciousness but having to teach about it to students at least I know what we do not know and what are blind ends already troddled by so many thinkers.  So unless I see something really novel and well thought I feel a sense of already seen (deja vu).

I am a bit surprised that you expect that people know everything.

Do you master french?

www.editions-tredaniel.com/

http://www.editions-tredaniel.com/voyage-aux-confins-de-la-conscience-p-7044.html

Is a hypothetical super intelligent robot conscious? If not, is there any test to distinguish between conscious  and non-conscious forms?

Till now there is no precise definition for consciousness in science. various definitions in medical terminalogy, psychology . We have to freeze one definition  for all the subjects.

Then we have to think what is life? Why consciousness is attributed to living things only? What is the difference between life and consciousness?

Then we have to define life. and the difference between living things and non living things.

Physics is describing universe and all materialistic world. It is very determenistic.

Then why it is not describing the differense? It can..

First of all letus consider life it self is consciousness. ofcourse degrees may varry.

Next step we can do is in the scale of its order we can say various levels of life. in that consciousness also will be one of level can be described deterministicly and perfectly.

that definition given by physics which starts from a concept and to reach direct or indirect verification by experiments will satisfy all the subjects like medicine , psychology ,physiology etc

There are levels of consciousness. These levels correspond to levels of life. They are empirical, epistemological, and ontological.

I do not fully agree with you. An alive person does not mean have consciousness such as a murderer, we are used to calling him lost consciousness. For someone under severe control or emotional trauma and lost his meaning of life, we call him is an alive dead man. 

Buddhism says that all things are spiritual. If you can use the energy vibration frequency to test the consciousness, I do not know if you can find something interesting?

I can witness "all things are spiritual." 

Concord, Massachusetts. If you have time, you’d better visit there.

“Why?” The energy there is so strong, especially in the North Bridge – the revolution war happened there.

“What’s special?” You can notice the tree, stone, everything with energy and they has feelings that they can communicate with you with energy. When you have a good intention, the universe also rewards you with visible signs. You can see and feel.

Note: The energy is getting stronger if your intention is good and the feedback is warmer and pleasant. It’s also proportional to how much you can influence or benefit to the world and/or the others.

One day, when I stand in the front of a tree, I remembered a qigong master teaches people to throw one's sickness qi to the tree even I did not have any specific illness, I tried that. However, I immediately discovered that I did wrong. I did recall my qi back. Meanwhile, I asked the tree forgive my selfish. Immediately, I could feel a warm qi from the tree toward to my whole body. That was in May and a raining day. Concord was still cold.

If let plants listen to good music, they grow better. This had experimented before. Does it mean plant also has consciousness and can react to the music?

I remember a research also stated that a tree also can show during its life, it experienced happiness or disaster.

Can happiness, sadness count as consciousness?

You might be interested in the research of Paul Chauchard regarding conciousness:

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.102028

Best Regards

André