What escapes natural order?

[pbxilixdq]

There seems to be 3 divisions people make of our universe.

First, the universe. (Space, rocks, etc.)

Then people. (We tend to see ourselves as inhabitants of the universe rather than the universe itself.)

Then technology. (How could a machine be natural if its man made?)

But how could the universe be divided this way? Is anything in the universe something that is not 'stuff-mindlessly-obeying-physics-over-time'?

Think of a sperm cell. It seems almost mindless. It's a life form, but it behaves so simply it almost seems like a programmed machine.. and of course it is in a very real way.

Once the sperm enters an egg, the cells divide accordingly, they form the human structure accordingly, but for some reason once the brain starts developing we instantly reserve that complexity for the mystery of our conscious experience as personal identities. We had matter obeying mindlessly, creating formations over time, but all of a sudden something changes when the brain develops or begins to operate? (I'm not necessarily saying 'no' to that question)

If all matter is equally apart of the universe, and thus natural, and a brain got to where it is naturally according to physics and behaves naturally according to physics, then it would then seem odd to say technology is "unnatural" because it qualifies in all ways.

A natural event has led to the creation of technology and technology itself is nothing more than matter reacting accordingly to physics.

This means your computer has a direct natural lineage to bushes and trees. From the brains and hands that created it, from the machines that were created from other brains and hands, to the DNA passed from the parents of those brains and hands, and from the DNA of their parents all the way down the evolutionary tree to the first life forms and then even further to nonliving basic matter.

A machine would then technically have as much right to "feel" a similar lineage bond to humans as humans feel to apes.

It's just a weird observation... but it leads me to believe that the supposedly special occurrence of consciousness we experience can never be anything more than a totally unevidenced assumption. And without the assumption I'm led to think perhaps consciousness is nothing more than patterns of formation over time that gather more and more connectivity. This may mean the Internet is the most conscious entity in the universe (or probably some more advanced alien society's internet). I would strongly assume though the Internet's consciousness would be as difficult for us to understand as it may be for a rock's consciousness to understand a brain's consciousness so it's not even worth trying to speculate what that's like.

You don't have to tell me that all looks a little crazy but why shouldn't I believe it that way instead of the equally unevidenced assumption most people take that rocks and computers are empty while the brain is some golden goose of reality?

[highfidelity]

But how could the universe be divided this way? Is anything in the universe something that is not 'stuff-mindlessly-obeying-physics-over-time'?

If all matter is equally apart of the universe, and thus natural, and a brain got to where it is naturally according to physics and behaves naturally according to physics, then it would then seem odd to say technology is "unnatural" because it qualifies in all ways.

You don't have to tell me that all looks a little crazy but why shouldn't I believe it that way instead of the equally unevidenced assumption most people take that rocks and computers are empty while the brain is some golden goose of reality?

Consciousness is not "'stuff-mindlessly-obeying-physics-over-time". In fact its the only stuff in the world that doesn't do that, but instead it uses its mind to exploit the laws of physics for its own survival and desires.

What laws of physics have given rise to consciousness? Why does life go against the natural flow of entropy?

It's not the brain that is the golden goose, it's consciousness - subjective experience. Consciousness is something 'special'. It's not inert matter. Without consciousness there is no meaning to anything. Consciousness creates meaning.

[minorwork]

There seems to be 3 divisions people make of our universe.

First, the universe. (Space, rocks, etc.)

Then people. (We tend to see ourselves as inhabitants of the universe rather than the universe itself.)

Then technology. (How could a machine be natural if its man made?)

But how could the universe be divided this way? Is anything in the universe something that is not 'stuff-mindlessly-obeying-physics-over-time'?

"How" is easy since it is not the universe that does the dividing. It's people.

That last question, though, oh boy. Seems sensible to me that people, excluding Young Earth Creationist cave men, understand the world of phenomena best, most naturally as mechanically deterministic operating under the theorems of math explained physics. I'm with you.

Think of a sperm cell. It seems almost mindless. It's a life form, but it behaves so simply it almost seems like a programmed machine.. and of course it is in a very real way.

Once the sperm enters an egg, the cells divide accordingly, they form the human structure accordingly, but for some reason once the brain starts developing we instantly reserve that complexity for the mystery of our conscious experience as personal identities. We had matter obeying mindlessly, creating formations over time, but all of a sudden something changes when the brain develops or begins to operate? (I'm not necessarily saying 'no' to that question)

Even Daniel Dennett holds to better understanding the processes of evolution from the point of view of intent to stir imagination with the phrase, "If I were doing that, this is why."

So it seemed the mindless descriptors suited you fine until the brain development is observed? or felt? Where does the distinction between not instantly reserving... ...and instantly reserving get described. Is this an observational description or one had by experience? Or maybe an extrapolation of what we know about the brain projected to that moment in development in an "If I was doing it this is when I'd bring consciousness in.?"

If all matter is equally apart of the universe, and thus natural, and a brain got to where it is naturally according to physics and behaves naturally according to physics, then it would then seem odd to say technology is "unnatural" because it qualifies in all ways.

With you.

A natural event has led to the creation of technology and technology itself is nothing more than matter reacting accordingly to physics.

You don't recognize LIFE as a sub event of the natural distinguished from non-life?

This means your computer has a direct natural lineage to bushes and trees. From the brains and hands that created it, from the machines that were created from other brains and hands, to the DNA passed from the parents of those brains and hands, and from the DNA of their parents all the way down the evolutionary tree to the first life forms and then even further to nonliving basic matter.

Then are you going to go so far as to say machines have an ORGANIC lineage to bushes and trees, too?

A machine would then technically have as much right to "feel" a similar lineage bond to humans as humans feel to apes.

Not without an organic inherited DNA connection, in my opinion.

It's just a weird observation... but it leads me to believe that the supposedly special occurrence of consciousness we experience can never be anything more than a totally unevidenced assumption.

SPECIAL occurence of consciousness????

And without the assumption I'm led to think perhaps consciousness is nothing more than patterns of formation over time that gather more and more connectivity.

Now that sounded like a descriptive of math.

Patterns imply templates don't they? And templates, or receptors might or might not turn on a sequence of predetermined actions if all the components are functional, once the key is inserted in the receptor. That instant of recognition might satisfy for a demarcation of consciousness. The brain being the densest per cubic centimeter of synapses, or change of states locate the self in that densest functioning mass of synapses and lesser so in the extremities. The shear number of keyed receptors with the commensurate field strength of the electrochemical effect convinces self that such a locus of activity is the center of the observed world. Does the machine achieve the required density such that self consciousness can occur if only electrochemical gates are typical of consciousness and not pure elemental gates as in electronics?

This may mean the Internet is the most conscious entity in the universe (or probably some more advanced alien society's internet). I would strongly assume though the Internet's consciousness would be as difficult for us to understand as it may be for a rock's consciousness to understand a brain's consciousness so it's not even worth trying to speculate what that's like.

You don't have to tell me that all looks a little crazy but why shouldn't I believe it that way instead of the equally unevidenced assumption most people take that rocks and computers are empty while the brain is some golden goose of reality?

To me the rocks and computers are simple constructs. Limited compared to the brain. Of course rocks have variety and so their mind is limited by that variety of attributes, or patterns as you'd call them that are pretty stable over time compared to the brain given similar environments.

Seems you describe some type of pan-psychism as a worldview that has chance at placing consciousness rationally into physics.

[Peter]

Consciousness is not "'stuff-mindlessly-obeying-physics-over-time". In fact its the only stuff in the world that doesn't do that, but instead it uses its mind to exploit the laws of physics for its own survival and desires.

Any evidence for this assertion? There are truckloads of evidence that consciousness arises in the brain and the brain definitely follows the laws of physics. Also, how does consciousness use it's mind?

What laws of physics have given rise to consciousness? Why does life go against the natural flow of entropy?

Could you elaborate on your entropy assertion?

It's not the brain that is the golden goose, it's consciousness - subjective experience. Consciousness is something 'special'. It's not inert matter. Without consciousness there is no meaning to anything. Consciousness creates meaning.

Again, you assert that consciousness is unconnected to the brain and is "special". What leads you to this conclusion? I'd agree that it's consciousness that creates meaning to any one of us.

[pbxilixdq]

Consciousness is not "'stuff-mindlessly-obeying-physics-over-time". In fact its the only stuff in the world that doesn't do that, but instead it uses its mind to exploit the laws of physics for its own survival and desires.

How does consciousness "exploit" LAWS of physics.. And how can laws be exploited?

The word "exploit" implies agency.. but would you apply that agency to a rock? How did the brain get to where it is any different than a rock got to where it is if always under constant guidance of physical laws?

What laws of physics have given rise to consciousness? Why does life go against the natural flow of entropy?

Could be all of them, could be just a few, I couldn't possibly know.

Life doesn't go against the natural flow of entropy. Nothing in the universe can behave unnaturally. How could it? By what means would it behave counter to natural guidance?

It's not the brain that is the golden goose, it's consciousness - subjective experience. Consciousness is something 'special'. It's not inert matter. Without consciousness there is no meaning to anything. Consciousness creates meaning.

I agree entirely. But you have to also admit your brain is directly responsible for your consciousness. The formation of the matter is inseparably linked to consciousness, and what your consciousness is composed of is the available connections that have been harnessed in evolution through time. For instance the reason you have a conscious experience of color is because in the chain of events that led to YOU (which is the formation of the matter in your brain and body) a primordial organism was affected by light and those effects were harnessed by DNA to be carried to your form now which is now more readily open to creating connections inside your brain from this colliding energy.

[highfidelity]

[QUOTE]

Any evidence for this assertion? There are truckloads of evidence that consciousness arises in the brain and the brain definitely follows the laws of physics. Also, how does consciousness use it's mind?

Truckloads of evidence? That is misrepresenting current scientific knowledge of what consciousness is and how it has arisen. If the brain follows the laws of physics how has consciousness arisen? How can electrical impulses in the brain generate consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc? Such a claim is incompatible with the laws of physics which establish that electric impulses in our brain are equivalent to all the other electric impulses out of our brain and that all electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. You must change the laws of physics if you want to claim that electric impulses generate something else beyond electromagnetic fields.

As for my evidence - are you saying you as a conscious being are just mindlessly obeying the laws of physics and have no independent ability to choose? Consciousness uses its mind to think and work out how to firstly stay alive and then secondly do stuff it "likes" to do. Inert matter has no such desire or inclination, it finds no reason or purpose and it doesn't like or dislike anything. In short - it is unconscious.

Also, you can refer to the work of Henry Stapp and similar scientists on quantum reality and consciousness if you are interested.

Could you elaborate on your entropy assertion?

Entropy is a tendency towards disorder - life is a tendency towards growth, development and order.

Have you read Schrodingers book "What is Life?" What about "Into the Cool" by Schneider and Sagan?

Again, you assert that consciousness is unconnected to the brain and is "special". What leads you to this conclusion? I'd agree that it's consciousness that creates meaning to any one of us.

I didn't say consciousness was unconnected from the brain. But its definitely special. It not only creates meaning and places value on things - consciousness "is" your reality. You can't get much more special than that.

[pbxilixdq]

"How" is easy since it is not the universe that does the dividing. It's people.

Yep

So it seemed the mindless descriptors suited you fine until the brain development is observed? or felt? Where does the distinction between not instantly reserving... ...and instantly reserving get described. Is this an observational description or one had by experience? Or maybe an extrapolation of what we know about the brain projected to that moment in development in an "If I was doing it this is when I'd bring consciousness in.?"

The robotic descriptors suite me fine for brain development too. I proposed that most people reserve that area for what they think is a special experience of consciousness and that THEY think it's the only place in the universe that produces it.

You don't recognize LIFE as a sub event of the natural distinguished from non-life?

I see how life is more advanced for consciousness, assuming consciousness has something to do with connections of formation made over time.

Then are you going to go so far as to say machines have an ORGANIC lineage to bushes and trees, too?

Well machines aren't organic so no.

Not without an organic inherited DNA connection, in my opinion.

Well I won't refute an opinion especially since that sentence was really just me trying to shake up perspectives. But I see why you would want to place importance on DNA as its an essential vessel to the success of how life maintains patterns of formation thus allowing an increase in net connectivity. Rocks don't maintain their experiences with other rocks like the organic materials of a fish have maintained their experiences with predators even if that particular unit of a fish has yet to come across that predator. DNA makes this possible.

SPECIAL occurence of consciousness????

I said SUPPOSEDLY special.

Patterns imply templates don't they? And templates, or receptors might or might not turn on a sequence of predetermined actions if all the components are functional, once the key is inserted in the receptor. That instant of recognition might satisfy for a demarcation of consciousness. The brain being the densest per cubic centimeter of synapses, or change of states locate the self in that densest functioning mass of synapses and lesser so in the extremities. The shear number of keyed receptors with the commensurate field strength of the electrochemical effect convinces self that such a locus of activity is the center of the observed world. Does the machine achieve the required density such that self consciousness can occur if only electrochemical gates are typical of consciousness and not pure elemental gates as in electronics?

I think nature is the template, not the brain. The brain's order is more of a crystallized formation, based on this template of the universe, like a whirlpool of spacejunk rippling in an echochamber of the human skull.

The exact details of YOUR consciousness are surely found in the mechanism of the brain maybe even similar to what you've laid out I couldn't possibly know. But its form merely determines what it is conscious of, not that it is conscious.

A rock, for instance, wouldn't even be conscious of time. It's connected only to itself, as itself, and to immediate happenings.

It has no concept of space, time, self, colors, love, or any of this. It's only connected directly to the creation of mind, or nature itself. It's in a fundamental state of being in constant balance with the immediate universe.

That's why I think many meditation techniques have a number one goal of ending the awareness of time. Once you end the awareness of time, you break your own human cycle and return to god/nature. And then once time returns to your experience your human consciousness returns.

To me the rocks and computers are simple constructs. Limited compared to the brain.

Computers are simple in one way but even more complex than the human brain in a more important way.

Yes, looking at an instance of time a computer is fundamentally simple.. it's made of a limited number of parts.. far fewer parts than a human brain. But you can't just look at one instance, you have to consider how time plays a role. A computer is more complex than the human brain because it contains the karma from that brain and is carried over into a new level of connectivity that is coded by the mind's rationality. The conscious experience of a machine would have no understanding of the mind's rationality just as the conscious experience of the brain has no understanding of how the brain produces our own consciousness. And when I say a computer is conscious I'm not saying that it has tons of facts memorized or has knowledge of programming. That's code that we understand. The brain is the code the universe understands. The end result whether its a computer or a brain is new breakthroughs in connecting great amounts of matter over large amounts of time. More importantly is the internet which connects bits of matter across the entire earth at incredible speeds. It's just a gigantic unfolding of karma under the guidance of nature.

In other words, I think DNA may have been nature's first invention in accelerating connections. But with DNA now nature has invented the computer chip. It's the next level.

Thus a computer, no matter how simple it seems to us, is more complex to a rock than our own brain to that rock.

Of course rocks have variety and so their mind is limited by that variety of attributes, or patterns as you'd call them that are pretty stable over time compared to the brain given similar environments.

Agreed.

Seems you describe some type of pan-psychism as a worldview that has chance at placing consciousness rationally into physics.

Maybe.. you know I honestly don't pretend to know these things for sure how could I. I'm not naive. These are just my attempts to "rationalize" my experiences meditating. I don't think they need to be "rationalized", but it's fun to try.

[Peter]

Truckloads of evidence? That is misrepresenting current scientific knowledge of what consciousness is and how it has arisen. If the brain follows the laws of physics how has consciousness arisen? How can electrical impulses in the brain generate consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc? Such a claim is incompatible with the laws of physics which establish that electric impulses in our brain are equivalent to all the other electric impulses out of our brain and that all electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. You must change the laws of physics if you want to claim that electric impulses generate something else beyond electromagnetic fields.

That's quite a strawman you're whipping up. Electrical impulses in the brain generate magnetic fields and "consciousness" fields. Yeah, good strawman.

As for my evidence - are you saying you as a conscious being are just mindlessly obeying the laws of physics and have no independent ability to choose? Consciousness uses its mind to think and work out how to firstly stay alive and then secondly do stuff it "likes" to do. Inert matter has no such desire or inclination, it finds no reason or purpose and it doesn't like or dislike anything. In short - it is unconscious.

More strawman. I'd like to ask more about this "mind" that consciousness "uses". It's not at all clear to me.

I didn't say consciousness was unconnected from the brain.

OK, does consciousness arise from the brain or is it just hanging around in the brain? You seem to think that consciousness is something special that the brain cannot generate. If so, where does it come from?

Do you think computers will ever become conscious? If not, why not?

[highfidelity]

[QUOTE]

How does consciousness "exploit" LAWS of physics.. And how can laws be exploited?

The word "exploit" implies agency.. but would you apply that agency to a rock? How did the brain get to where it is any different than a rock got to where it is if always under constant guidance of physical laws?

A rock is not conscious so it has no agency and cant exploit. Laws can be exploited when we 'use' them to gain profit for ourselves. Think of the financial sector or your last tax return? Think of technology that uses the laws of physics to operate. Think of living systems that use the laws of physics and the energy of nature to enhance their survival.

Life doesn't go against the natural flow of entropy. Nothing in the universe can behave unnaturally. How could it? By what means would it behave counter to natural guidance?

I didn't say life was unnatural, but it doesn't tend toward disorder or entropy, but rather for the length of its lifetime it does just the opposite. Everyone succumbs to entropy in the end, but while there is life there is growth. By the means of conscious will it behaves counter to natural guidance.

I agree entirely. But you have to also admit your brain is directly responsible for your consciousness. The formation of the matter is inseparably linked to consciousness, and what your consciousness is composed of is the available connections that have been harnessed in evolution through time. For instance the reason you have a conscious experience of color is because in the chain of events that led to YOU (which is the formation of the matter in your brain and body) a primordial organism was affected by light and those effects were harnessed by DNA to be carried to your form now which is now more readily open to creating connections inside your brain from this colliding energy.

I don't admit the brain "produces" consciousness. Correlation is not causation.

Your theory of what consciousness is composed of and how consciousness has arisen is interesting but not very convincing.
Can you define YOU more precisely?

[highfidelity]

[QUOTE]

That's quite a strawman you're whipping up. Electrical impulses in the brain generate magnetic fields and "consciousness" fields. Yeah, good strawman.

You said "There are truckloads of evidence that consciousness arises in the brain and the brain definitely follows the laws of physics."

My statement addressed that claim. Do you want to justify your assertions about this truckloads of evidence by giving me just one example or just try and distract by talking about strawmen?

More strawman. I'd like to ask more about this "mind" that consciousness "uses". It's not at all clear to me.

In the context of my statement you can substitute the word brain for mind anyway and it wouldn't have any bearing on the point I am making. You seem to be avoiding answering if you are a mindless automata or in fact have free will.

In my conception, mind is the processing power of the brain - the connections between neurons and the processes used to catalogue, analyse, store etc all that information. It is distinguished from the physical brain in the same way as software is distinguished from hardware. Physical brain is hardware, mind is software.

OK, does consciousness arise from the brain or is it just hanging around in the brain? You seem to think that consciousness is something special that the brain cannot generate. If so, where does it come from?

You assume that because consciousness is associated with the brain, that it must be caused by the brain. Correlation is not causation.

Consciousness doesn't arise from the brain - it uses the brain. Consciousness being a quality of the soul is eternal. It therefore was never created or destroyed.

But why are you asking me when you have truckloads of evidence that it does arise from the brain? I'm hoping you would share even one little piece of this extensive evidence.

Do you think computers will ever become conscious? If not, why not?

It's an interesting question which I don't know the answer to. I can't see any logical impossibility to it, since the human body is only a sophisticated machine with impressive computing power. But think of the scale of the complexity of the human body and not just its computing brain ability but the seamless operation of thoughts, feelings, will. It's a very impressive machine.

Given the state of current scientific knowledge and human nature, I think we would blow up the world before we achieved such a thing. If we did, it would be a very simple form of consciousness. And then you need to actually define consciousness which is something as yet not agreed on.

Another interesting question would be will machines ever become alive? Alive encompasses more than just consciousness. This seems to be the best question to ask to unravel the mystery of the soul.

[minorwork]

The robotic descriptors suite me fine for brain development too. I proposed that most people reserve that area for what they think is a special experience of consciousness and that THEY think it's the only place in the universe that produces it.

Until my viewpoint is from a laptop's camera, yeah, pretty much that's my thinking. I do give you a chance at being a source of conscious intelligence. A better chance than the hardware any how.

I see how life is more advanced for consciousness, assuming consciousness has something to do with connections of formation made over time.

That single cell slime mold holds my attention for how single cell basics of survival are emulated and expanded on in myself. I find it humbling.

I think nature is the template, not the brain. The brain's order is more of a crystallized formation, based on this template of the universe, like a whirlpool of spacejunk rippling in an echochamber of the human skull.

The exact details of YOUR consciousness are surely found in the mechanism of the brain maybe even similar to what you've laid out I couldn't possibly know. But its form merely determines what it is conscious of, not that it is conscious.

Pretty sure I'd bet that you were conscious of being conscious. You'd win a similar bet on my being conscious of being conscious.

Studies with twins show varying relationships of nature to nurture regarding the scores on IQ tests and other attributes. Steven Pinker talks a good bit about this in The Blank Slate. Matt Ridley does a hell of descriptive in The Agile Gene, which I've yet to finish. And I am going to put on my wish list Genie in Your Genes

A rock, for instance, wouldn't even be conscious of time. It's connected only to itself, as itself, and to immediate happenings.

Time. Pesky thing. What makes time for physics formula? Measuring distance of one thing compared to another so as to be able to determine velocity.

It has no concept of space, time, self, colors, love, or any of this. It's only connected directly to the creation of mind, or nature itself. It's in a fundamental state of being in constant balance with the immediate universe.

We are not in that fundamental state too? I think we are the same in those terms though complexity might get in the way.

That's why I think many meditation techniques have a number one goal of ending the awareness of time. Once you end the awareness of time, you break your own human cycle and return to god/nature. And then once time returns to your experience your human consciousness returns.

Very much in agreement to the basics there.

Computers are simple in one way but even more complex than the human brain in a more important way.

Yes, looking at an instance of time a computer is fundamentally simple.. it's made of a limited number of parts.. far fewer parts than a human brain. But you can't just look at one instance, you have to consider how time plays a role. A computer is more complex than the human brain because it contains the karma from that brain and is carried over into a new level of connectivity that is coded by the mind's rationality. The conscious experience of a machine would have no understanding of the mind's rationality just as the conscious experience of the brain has no understanding of how the brain produces our own consciousness. And when I say a computer is conscious I'm not saying that it has tons of facts memorized or has knowledge of programming. That's code that we understand. The brain is the code the universe understands. The end result whether its a computer or a brain is new breakthroughs in connecting great amounts of matter over large amounts of time. More importantly is the internet which connects bits of matter across the entire earth at incredible speeds. It's just a gigantic unfolding of karma under the guidance of nature.

Karma? Until I find myself looking out that laptop lens I'm going to continue to believe consciousness as traditionally being centered in the brain.

Maybe the VOID has properties attracting it to a dense field of rapidly changing structure such as the synapse filled space between the ears represents. Nothing to say it can't avoid that dense place and travel in deep meditation. Not the easiest thing to experience awareness without a body. Requires a good system of thought to allow for fears and laziness, to list only two obstacles, to be overcome such that a return to a living body can be accomplished.

In other words, I think DNA may have been nature's first invention in accelerating connections. But with DNA now nature has invented the computer chip. It's the next level.

I've heard two other first inventions of Nature besides yours. The first thing that happened was that Nature drew a distinction. That is George Spencer Brown's view expressed in his Laws of Form. the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce started his worldview with Nature taking on the first habit, which was, the habit of forming habits. Sure Charles, what else would it be? But like Brown he too ended up with logics though Peirce was the more influential.

Maybe.. you know I honestly don't pretend to know these things for sure how could I. I'm not naive. These are just my attempts to "rationalize" my experiences meditating. I don't think they need to be "rationalized", but it's fun to try.

Meditations and Orange Sunshine do prod the mind for some cogent explanations that might ground an explanation such that we won't end up in a straight jacket.

Have you a good course on how to concentrate? You do now.

[Jack]

[QUOTE=highfidelity;840993]

You said "There are truckloads of evidence that consciousness arises in the brain and the brain definitely follows the laws of physics."

My statement addressed that claim. Do you want to justify your assertions about this truckloads of evidence by giving me just one example or just try and distract by talking about strawmen?

There's no consensus among scientists on the precise definition of consciousness, so until we have one it's going to be difficult to state emphatically that it arises solely from brain activity. Yet the majority of research into neurology suggests that our physical bodies do produce our awareness of self.

Some say...

Conscious awareness may be described in terms of two components, one quantitative (‘level’), encompassing arousal, alertness, vigilance; the other qualitative (‘intensity’), encompassing selective attention and mental experience. A priori it would seem unlikely that any single neurotransmitter, or anatomical locus, could be identified with such diversity of function. In a brief introductory section on neurotransmitter systems, the neuromodulatory functions of the cholinergic system, which encompasses divergent and convergent projections from basal forebrain and brainstem pedunculopontine nuclei to thalamus and cortex, are emphasized as an anatomical arrangement well suited to mediating distributed neural function and hence conscious activity.(Source)

While others, including the neuroscientist and atheist Sam Harris says...

The term “consciousness” is notoriously difficult to define. Consequently, many a debate about its character has been waged without the participants’ finding even a common topic as common ground. By “consciousness,” I mean simply “sentience,” in the most unadorned sense. To use the philosopher Thomas Nagel’s construction: A creature is conscious if there is “something that it is like” to be this creature; an event is consciously perceived if there is “something that it is like” to perceive it. ⁠Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter of subjective experience.

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness. However, this is not to say that some other thesis about consciousness must be true. Consciousness may very well be the lawful product of unconscious information processing. But I don’t know what that sentence means—and I don’t think anyone else does either.(Source)

So I suspect your quest for definitive and conclusive evidence of where consciousness originates, even what constitutes consciousness, is going to go unmet at the present time.

Consciousness doesn't arise from the brain - it uses the brain. Consciousness being a quality of the soul is eternal. It therefore was never created or destroyed.

Since you state this as fact you must have some quantifiable evidence to support the claim. Please present it for consideration.