I am quite sure that this topic has been thoroughly discussed on this forum. I am bringing it back to see if there are new ideas about consciousness, especially about human consciousness, worthy of discussion and debate.

Human consciousness is one of the most fascinating and probbably the most difficult part of human nature to study and understand. There are many many theories, notions and traditions espousing different, and sometimes, contradicting ideas of what consciousness actually means.

The entire academic and professional discipline of [b]psychology [/b]revolves around an attempt to understand human consciousness.



1. What is consciousness?

2. Do all living creatures have consciousness?

3.Is consciousness a devine, non-physical attribute of human nature, or, just an outcome of chemical reactions in the body?

4. Is our mother Earth a living conscious entity or just a ball of dirt and water floating in space?

5. Is there such a thing as collective consciousness or is every conscious being independent?

Lets discuss.

Hoping to contribute to the thread...

Well to start with . . . , can someone please help me to understand what KAG was talking about here when he draws a distinction between Awareness and Consciousness, and then claims to be able to demonstrate Awareness and Consciousness in the thread.

KAG:

To explain being isn't as easy as it may seem; however, since it seems to be a sticking point, perhaps a provisional, concise idea of what I mean by being might do. Being, for me, indicates some level of awareness [and perhaps perception] towards something.

Pastor AIO:

By awareness I take it you mean consciousness.  Of all the things we know for sure in Life Consciousness is the most subjective.  It is such a totally subjective experience that it cannot be demonstrated in anyway whatsoever.  (Which is a point I was going to bring up in another thread but I got distracted, but there are two types of Proof.  Demonstrable proof and subjective proof.  Subjective proof cannot be demonstrated and so cannot be raised in an argument to convince someone else.)

I know for sure that I am conscious because I experience it.  I can never know for a fact whether or not you are a conscious being.  It can never be demonstrated to me, your consciousness.  It could be that you are a very clever automaton or some form of Artificial Intelligence.  They have AI now that can have conversations and appear to think like conscious humans but in actually fact it is just sophisticated programming.  How am I sure that you are not just a cleverly neurologically programmed automaton.  I'll never know if you are in actual fact conscious because you cannot demonstrate or communicate that to me.  

I, for reasons of my own, actually believe that the entire universe is conscious, from the Rocks to the wind blowing through the trees down to Space and time itself.  And as for perception which is the ability to receive and retain information, everything can receive information.  A plasticene receives information when you imprint it with a stamp.  There are many qualities of consciousness and I fear that you might be taking ego-bound consciousness for the whole of consciousness.

KAG:

No, I mean awareness.



I disagree, consciousness can be demonstrated and raised in argument. For the most part it would be human-centric, but it can be shown. In any case, that's another topic as consciousness wasn't my point.




I find the idea of a conscious Universe interesting. No, that's not what perception means. No, I have not used the ego as the catch-all for all consciousness.

Pastor AIO: Mr. KAG I have been so totally flummoxed by your standpoint that it has taken me this long to respond. Where does one start?


I am yet to understand the distinction between awareness and consciousness. But for your sake I will restate my position thus, that Awareness is a totally subjective experience and it cannot be communicated to another. I can never know if you are an aware being or not. It is more likely that you are a cleverly programmed machine. Greater minds than yours in the Atheist camp have conceded this fact.


Well I invite you to present your argument that will convince me that you are aware of your existence. And far from consciousness not being the point ( it might not be central to your point, but that is because you are not familiar with the territory covered by this issue) it is at the very core of the point.

KAG:


I can appreciate not understanding the distinction between the two terms, as they can often seem syonymous, so perhaps, it would have helped if I had provided a definition of the term. [size=14pt]Awareness would be the abiity to realise a happening. It is cognizance at a most basic level. Consciousness, on the other hand isn't so basic a factor of cogizance, and implies self-awareness[/size].

So, no, awareness is not a "totally subjective experience [that] cannot be communicated to another." You know I'm aware because I'm acknowledging your ideas, parsing them, and responding accordingly.

What greater minds have conceded that awareness can't be determined?



The easiest argument is to point out that I am fully cognizant of being an I. That I can postulate that indicates awareness.

Pastor AIO:

Okay Mr. Mechanical Engineer. I can presume that you have a high knowledge of mechanics. Is it or is it not possible to invent a machine that is sensitive to it's environment to such a high degree that it seems to be aware and reacts to the slightest changes in the environment.

There is a website called AskJeeves.com whom you can ask questions and it will respond accordingly. Is AskJeeves aware?

An entity or a body responding to it's environment is not a sign of awareness. Tree leaves swaying in response to the passing breeze is not a sign of awareness.

So though you are 'acknowledging my questions, parsing them, and responding accordingly' that tells me nothing about whether you are aware or not. AI can do the same.


So this: The easiest argument is to point out that I am fully cognizant of being an I. That I can postulate that indicates awareness.
[/b]
is not an argument to prove your awareness. I don't know that you're cognizant of anything. Not anymore than any of those clever japanese robots. You are just a more sophisticated version of AI. I can never know that you have the experience of awareness. The experience itself is much too subjective.

I quote Keith Augustine (a naturalist):

One of the most persistent difficulties for reductive physicalism has been the apparent inability of physicalistic explanations to capture qualitative features of conscious experience. It has been persuasively argued that qualia--the experiential feels of 'what it is like' to be in a conscious mental state--cannot be captured by any physicalistic explanations in principle because physicalistic explanations inherently refer to objective or public features of phenomena, whereas the experiential features of consciousness are inherently subjective or private (Teller 1992, pp. 190-191). While such arguments for the irreducibility of consciousness are not the last word on the subject, they have not been decisively refuted either--at least not in the view of several prominent philosophers. Although such difficulties may be resolved in the future, their current resistance to a clear resolution that gains widespread acceptance gives us good reason to resist simply identifying the natural with the physical.


This was taken from here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html

I was furnished with this source by either you or Huxley. It could be Huxley actually and I remain grateful.

As far as I know consciousness does not exhibit any qualities that someone else can now come and measure. The only effect that consciousness/awareness exhibits is the subjective effect that it has on the conscious person. Every other effect exhibited by the human being and observable by others can be explained by neurology. You don't need to be conscious to respond to questions if your brain has been programmed with the appropriate answers.

I'm on the cusp of giving up this thread completely but I'll persevere if we can make headway with just this point.

KAG:

Sensitivity to environment isn't awareness.


An entity realising and that realising implicating a response would be a sign of awareness. The leaf isn't aware.



Any AI that can do the same has awareness. To acknowledge something as complex and abstract as the factorsin your arguments, then to parse those ideas and appropriate them and then respond accordingly, is certainly indication of awareness. Creatig an artificial intelligence that possesses those skills will be the pinnacle of technology as science will have succeeded in creating a being-it-itself.

Just to be clear, no AI can do the same at this point in time.



It wasn't an argument to prove my awareness, it was an argument for my awareness. What clever Japanese robots have not only demonstrated the skills mentioned earlier, and, further, awareness of an "I"?

The experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable and have been presented in this thread.


Are we talking about consciouness or awareness? What aspect of conscious is your referent point? I'll come back to this if necessary.

Pastor AIO:
From what You've said above you seem to think that awareness is a result of the sophistication of an entity. So the more sophisticated the more likely to be aware. I refute this.


I'm beginning to suspect that you're just doing this to tease me. I thought you just defined consciousness as self awareness. so consciousness is awareness but in specialised form. what difference does it make whether I was there talking about broad awareness or just consciousness?


Bodily processes and states can be inspected by external observations. Thus a person’s bodily life is as much a public affair as are the lives of animals. But minds do not exist in space, nor are their operation subject to mechanical laws. The workings of the mind are not witnessable by other observers; its career is private. A person therefore lives through two collateral histories: one consisting of what happens to and with the body (public); the other consisting of what happens to and in the mind (private).


It's either an argument to prove (demonstrate) your awareness and you are capable of presenting such an argument, or it's not.


Then please present them, for God's sake. Demonstrate to me that you are an aware being. Demonstrate to me how you will prove that a clever AI is an aware being.

KAG:
Second, looking through the thread, it's certain that I have been getting what you've been saying, so alluding to not getting your point is bizzare.


What? No. For crying out loud, I even gave an indication of its level in my brief explanation of what I mean by awareness. Here: "It is cognizance at a most basic level."



I said consciousness implies self-awareness, but I guess that's semantics at this point of the discussion. In any case, consciousness and awareness should not be conflated. Awareness, like I indicated is a basic form of cognizance and may be simply conceived as a realisation of a happening. Consciousness is different. Further, one can be demonstrated over the internet, the other can't.



Sure. To claim that an entity is aware, the entity has to realise that something is happening, .i.e. know in itself about an occurence, then that realisation is what causes a reaction.



Proof is for maths and alcohol. I see where the confusion lays on this particular point. I wasn't trying to prove as science doesn't do proof, so mypointing out that it wasn't an attempt to prove, caused confusion.

Anyway, I have made the arguments for awareness and it demonstrates itself.

The experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable


A part of my definition of being is awareness towards; and awareness was defined as an ability to realise happenings

I later pointed out that: 'So, no, awareness is not a "totally subjective experience [that] cannot be communicated to another." You know I'm aware because I'm acknowledging your ideas, parsing them, and responding accordingly.'

A claim that's easily understandable, as I need to be aware to display those skills. I pointed that out when I wrote: "To acknowledge something as complex and abstract as the factors in your arguments, then to parse those ideas and appropriate them and then respond accordingly, is certainly indication of awareness."

Alas, "Just to be clear, no AI can do the same at this point in time."

Pastor AIO: O boy, let's just leave it. I don tire.

Where is everyone??

1. What is consciousness?

according to the The Cosmic Sea of Words, Eckankar Lexicon, Consciousness is that state of being in which the individual lives daily, which is divided into two parts, the phenomenal and the transcendental. the phenomenal depends upon the sense organs for its expression, the transcendental is independent of the physical senses and works directly with the ECK (Holy Spirit)
consciousness is also the reality of a particular kind of Awareness which is independent of the mind's activity.

2. Do all living creatures have consciousness?

yes. all living creatures have consciousness and non-living objects too.

3.Is consciousness a devine, non-physical attribute of human nature, or, just an outcome of chemical reactions in the body?

consciousness is actually an attribute of Soul. the level of a Soul's consciousness determines where it will find its expression which can be at the mineral, plant, animal or human level

4. Is our mother Earth a living conscious entity or just a ball of dirt and water floating in space?

it is a living conscious entity and not just a ball of dirt and water floating in space. it has a unique state of consciousness which gives rise to the events in the world.

5. Is there such a thing as collective consciousness or is every conscious being independent?

there is both individual consciousness and a collective consciousness. a collective consciousness of for example a particular tribe or country is comprised of aggregations of the individual consciousness within that tribe or country.

benodic:
according to the The Cosmic Sea of Words, Eckankar Lexicon, Consciousness is that state of being in which the individual lives daily, which is divided into two parts, the phenomenal and the transcendental. the phenomenal depends upon the sense organs for its expression, the transcendental is independent of the physical senses and works directly with the ECK (Holy Spirit)
consciousness is also the reality of a particular kind of Awareness which is independent of the mind's activity.

Wow! I've never check out Eck before and I agree with some of the things you say here. However, I would not say that Consciousness is a state cos I define a state as something that one is passing through, a stage in a process which is different from an unchanging essential being. However this could just be a matter of definitions and how we use the word differently.

I often use the distinctions Phenomenal and Super-phenomenal, which I suppose is what you would mean by phenomenal and transcendental.

benodic:

yes. all living creatures have consciousness and non-living objects too.

I am inclined to agree with this but I don't think that I could state it quite to authoritatively. The problem would be how to prove it.

benodic:
consciousness is actually an attribute of Soul. the level of a Soul's consciousness determines where it will find its expression which can be at the mineral, plant, animal or human level.

I wouldn't call consciousness an attribute at all. I believe that it is more essential than that.

plaetton: Where is everyone??

Wait till monday.

Wow. Brilliant thread. I have alot to say here, but using my phone now. Will revert when on the laptop.

I will say alot here, especially to atheists, because they shockingly dont recognize that consciousness, and particularly knowing sentience, is the most unshakeable and obvious proof of the existence of that ultimate sentience that is called GOD.

@ Pastor AIO, great rally u had there with Kag. I wonder is KAG is aware of the existence of chess playing robots and their ability to respond to complex strategic scenarios with jaw dropping intelligence. Such robots are neither self aware or conscious, not to speak of possessing knowing sentience.

I'll be back.

Deep Sight:
Wow. Brilliant thread. I have alot to say here, but using my phone now. Will revert when on the laptop.

I will say alot here, especially to atheists, because they shockingly dont recognize that consciousness, and particularly knowing sentience, is the most unshakeable and obvious proof of the existence of that ultimate sentience that is called GOD.

@ Pastor AIO, great rally u had there with Kag. I wonder is KAG is aware of the existence of chess playing robots and their ability to respond to complex strategic scenarios with jaw dropping intelligence. Such robots are neither self aware or conscious, not to speak of possessing knowing sentience.

I'll be back.

How does it prove the existence of god? Pls enlighten us

Consciousness defines reality. An Altered state of consciousness produces an altered perception of reality.
The universe, is , ultimately, a projection of our consciousness.

We see how drugs can alter our reality by simply elevating or altering the vibrational rate of our consciousness(our brain waves).
Therefore, Reality does not exist without the consciousness that defines it.

This brings us a very important question- Can an individual consciousness survive the physical dematerialisation(death) of the body?

If yes, how does the surviving intangible consciousness percieve any reality?

If no,does't that mean that universe ceases to exist since that consciousness no longer exists to percieve it?
The implication is that universe is probably a holographic projection that consciousness uses as an interface between it and nothingness.
It would mean that universe does not really exist except for the 7 billions units of exiled consciousness that percieve it as real in this planet.

And this again brings me to another question.
Did consciousness exist prior to the formation of the universe, or, is consciousness a by-product of energy interactions within the universe?

Were we conscious before we were born or did we grow into consciousness as our foetal brain waves reached a critical threshold?

This has great implications for the idea of an aftelifer, for , if we grew into consciousness, then consciousness would not be expected to survive the destruction of the physical body.
In this case the notion of an afterlife quickly becomes a big dud.
Not so?

Where is N Nwankwo? I would love to see his opinions on this.

plaetton: Consciousness defines reality. An Altered state of consciousness produces an altered perception of reality.
The universe, is , ultimately, a projection of our consciousness.

Would you accept it if I changed where you say 'an altered state of consciousness' and say rather an altered mode of perception.

I am suggesting this because it seems that you are talking about Perceptions rather than Consciousness.

Pastor AIO:

Would you accept it if I changed where you say 'an altered state of consciousness' and say rather an altered mode of perception.

I am suggesting this because it seems that you are talking about Perceptions rather than Consciousness.

I do understand where you are coming from. After thinking about it, I think I 'll let it remain as is.
For example, Brain scans clearly show that narcotis do affect brain waves and neural impulses, and therefore do alter states of consciousness, which in turn, alters the perception of reality.

plaetton:

I do understand where you are coming from. After thinking about it, I think I 'll let it remain as is.
For example, Brain scans clearly show that narcotis do affect brain waves and neural impulses, and therefore do alter states of consciousness, which in turn, alters the perception of reality.

Okay, but then I'll have to say that what you are calling consciousness is not what I am calling Consciousness. We are talking about 2 different things.

@Plaetton and Pastor AIO:

Consciousness is awareness, but does not necessarily involve perception.

Imagine two men experiencing a toothache. One is introspective of the pain, and thus is "conscious" of it, while the other pays it no mind. We can then say that the first man has a conscious pain. This is the first sense of "conscious". The second sense/meaning would be that just by virtue of having pain, both have conscious states. Pain is naturally phenomenal, and so in that second sense we cannot talk about unconscious pain. But in the first sense, one can be conscious / unconscious of pain.

To avoid ambiguity, we should rather term the first sense of consciousness phenomenality, as closely related to perception.

plaetton:
1. What is consciousness?

2. Do all living creatures have consciousness?

3.Is consciousness a devine, non-physical attribute of human nature, or, just an outcome of chemical reactions in the body?

4. Is our mother Earth a living conscious entity or just a ball of dirt and water floating in space?

5. Is there such a thing as collective consciousness or is every conscious being independent?

Lets discuss.

1. Consciousness is that which governs awareness of self/identity and surrounding.

2. Since all living creatures generally experience a sense of self-preservation to ensure survival, this means they are aware of identity and can distinguish self from surrounding. Therefore are conscious.

3. I think it is both, because there is an unexplained "gap" between mind and matter (e.g. why are brain states "conscious" as opposed to others?). But the problem with my stand would be to explain empirically how the non-physical attributes of consciousness can causally influence/interact with the physical ones. Materialists generally believe the mind is the brain, and consciousness only reflects neural activity. But rather, I agree with the philosopher Huxley (not Nairaland Huxley, Lol) here:

"How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp" - T.H.Huxley

This problem is called the Hard problem of Consciousness (originally identified by David Chalmers), and tries to understand how to explain states of consciousness in terms of their neurological basis.

EDIT: Chalmers' formulation of the Hard Problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

4. I think Mother Earth is a conscious entity. This is evidenced by climatic changes and the numerous earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides and tsunamis as the Earth fights back in a form of self-preservation, oceans and the atmosphere seemingly conspiring against us, bringing baking temperatures, more powerful storms, floods and ever-climbing sea levels.

5. I believe there is both individual and collective consciousness. The collective consciousness would be made up of the consciousnesses of the individuals that share the same motive in any particular respect. This motive would then serve to unite their identity in that regard, and this identity will be governed by a communal or collective consciousness.

The mirror test.

http://science.discovery.com/videos/through-the-wormhole-what-makes-us-who-we-are/

InesQor:
4. I think Mother Earth is a conscious entity. This is evidenced by climatic changes and the numerous earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides and tsunamis as the Earth fights back in a form of self-preservation, oceans and the atmosphere seemingly conspiring against us, bringing baking temperatures, more powerful storms, floods and ever-climbing sea levels.

I think you're just anthropomorphizing "mother" earth. These geological events have been observed on other planets and moons, so I think it's just the human hubris to think that natural events happen because the earth is defending itself againt humans. I'm not saying that human actions do not contribute but thinking the earth is a concious entity because of geological changes is a little bit too much.

http://geology.com/articles/active-volcanoes-solar-system.shtml
http://science.discovery.com/tv/how-the-universe-works/

Martian:

I think you're just anthropomorphizing "mother" earth. These geological events have been observed on other planets and moons, so I think it's just the human hubris to think that natural events happen because the earth is defending itself againt humans. I'm not saying that human actions do not contribute but thinking the earth is a concious entity because of geological changes is a little bit too much.

http://geology.com/articles/active-volcanoes-solar-system.shtml
http://science.discovery.com/tv/how-the-universe-works/

On that note Martian,all life earth springs from and is sustained by the earth. The human body contains all the elements found on the earth.
So logically, the earth is alive and is our mother.
If we have consciousness, then how could you imagine that our mother would not also have same?

I think Patient H.M is another evidence that our conciousness, identity, memory etc all supervene on the neural networks and other parts of our brains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/us/05hm.html?pagewanted=all
After exhausting other treatments, Dr. Scoville decided to surgically remove two finger-shaped slivers of tissue from Mr. Molaison’s brain. The seizures abated, but the procedure — especially cutting into the hippocampus, an area deep in the brain, about level with the ears — left the patient radically changed.

Martian: I think Patient H.M is another evidence that our conciousness, identity, memory etc all supervene on the neural networks and other parts of our brains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/us/05hm.html?pagewanted=all
After exhausting other treatments, Dr. Scoville decided to surgically remove two finger-shaped slivers of tissue from Mr. Molaison’s brain. The seizures abated, but the procedure — especially cutting into the hippocampus, an area deep in the brain, about level with the ears — left the patient radically changed.

Well, definitely the brain and the neural networks constitute the interface between intangible consciouness and physical reality.

Anencephaly
No Forebrain = No "Self"

Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness, reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K

Martian: Anencephaly
No Forebrain = No "Self"

Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness, reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K

This would mean that the neural network in this case is incomplete and therefore unable to generate brainwaves capable of reaching the critical threashold of consciousness.

Would you agree?

plaetton:

This would mean that the neural network in this case is incomplete and therefore unable to generate brainwaves capable of reaching the critical threashold of consciousness.

Would you agree?

Yes....and I think the most important part to it all is the forebrain.

So consciousness is a product of electrical activity in the brain.
No electrical activity, no consciousness, no reality.
Just nothingness.

Oh Oh.Hmmmm.
Dilema.
I'm confused now.

Can someone please come and explain consciousness and the afterlife.

plaetton:
On that note Martian,all life earth springs from and is sustained by the earth. The human body contains all the elements found on the earth.

Okay.

plaetton:
So logically, the earth is alive and is our mother.
If we have consciousness, then how could you imagine that our mother would not also have same?

I think this is how James Cameron conceived of planet pandora and "eywa" for the movie Avatar.

I don't think the earth is "alive" or is concious because there is no reason or evidence to suggest that the earth is concious in any shape or form. Unless you want to call geological actvities the evidence of conciousness.

Martian:

Okay.



I think this is how James Cameron conceived of planet pandora and "eywa" for the movie Avatar.

[b]I don't think the earth is "alive" o[/b]r is concious because there is no reason or evidence to suggest that the earth is concious in any shape or form. Unless you want to call geological actvities the evidence of conciousness.

What? you dont think the earth is alive? Evidence that the earth is alive am shaking my head. What type of reason or evidence are you looking for?
Even first grade biology gives you enough evidence.I'm dissapointed.

And pls dont start with your carricatures.
It would be a sure sign that this one is way over your head.
Dont be too proud to say " I dont know"

plaetton:

What? you dont think the earth is alive? Evidence that the earth is alive am shaking my head. What type of reason or evidence are you looking for?
Even first grade biology gives you enough evidence.I'm dissapointed.

And pls dont start with your carricatures.
It would be a sure sign that this one is way over your head.
Dont be too proud to say " I dont know"

What do you mean "alive"? do you mean it contains organisms that have life or do you mean the earth itself is alive as a sentient organism?

lol, why are you been combative, I'm just asking what you mean by the "earth is alive"

Martian:

What do you mean "alive"? do you mean it contains organisms that have life or do you mean the earth itself is alive as a sentient organism?

lol, why are you been combative, I'm just asking what you mean by the "earth is alive"

Because you have started with your avatar thing.

In whatever way you define life, the earth has it. That is the only way it can give life.
What is life to you?

plaetton:
Because you have started with your avatar thing.

Why are you people always getting so easily offended? Correct me if I'm wrong. Did or didn't James Cameron use the Gaia hypothesis or something similar as an inspiration for Pandora?

plaetton:
In whatever way you define life, the earth has it. That is the only way it can give life.
What is life to you?

Life can take many forms as we all know,both concious and unconcious but this is a proposition that a whole planet is sentient. It could be true and it could be false,and that's why I was asking you to clarify what you meant.

What do we mean by Alive, as opposed to Dead?

Are these words/concepts synonymous with Animate as opposed to Inanimate?

Pastor AIO: What do we mean by Alive, as opposed to Dead?

Are these words/concepts synonymous with Animate as opposed to Inanimate?

what do you think?

Harnessing KAG's terms: Consciousness is a higher level of awareness which includes self-realization/perception of one's identity. I think its first an effect, a state generated by base matter eg brain. Because both experimentally, matter and energy can't be exempted from the entire process.

As to why there is consciousness?