God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[Kharakov]

Awereness is the same as nonlycanthropy.

Non-wherewolfness?

N-only-can-throp-y?

 

[Kharakov]

You claim that the fact that they do not react with a complex nervous system indicates that their reactions are non-conscious- rather than simply indicating that primary conscious reactions exist prior to the existence of a nervous system.

You are postulating the existence of the 'primary' consciousnesses without evidence.

Meh, at some future point, I might be able to flesh in all the missing links between man and ape, or primordial consciousness and yours and mine, but..

We can trace evolution of reactions all the way back to the Big Bang.

Here are some scenarios:

1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.

In other words, we either have non-conscious reactions magically changing to conscious reactions at some point in time, or conscious reactions evolving over time.

Either 2 types of reactions, or a single type of reaction.

 

[bigfield]

You are postulating the existence of the 'primary' consciousnesses without evidence.

Meh, at some future point, I might be able to flesh in all the missing links between man and ape, or primordial consciousness and yours and mine, but..

We can trace evolution of reactions all the way back to the Big Bang.

Here are some scenarios:

1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.

In other words, we either have non-conscious reactions magically changing to conscious reactions at some point in time, or conscious reactions evolving over time.

First, you describe consciousnesses as an 'additional ability', and then you contradict yourself, by describing it as non-conscious reactions changing into conscious reactions. Consciousness is a phenomenon produced by large numbers of non-conscious objects acting in concert, but those constituent elements remain non-conscious; they don't change into conscious objects.

Perhaps that is why you think of it as 'magical' - you think that each individual quanta of energy in the human CNS is conscious.

Either 2 types of reactions, or a single type of reaction.

Your continued insistence that it would be more parsimonious to describe everything as conscious is in ignorance of the fact that such a theory cannot be reconciled with the evidence. I have presented reasons why it is irreconcilable and you have failed to provide an asnwer without resorting to fallacious arguments.

 

[Kharakov]

Meh, at some future point, I might be able to flesh in all the missing links between man and ape, or primordial consciousness and yours and mine, but..

We can trace evolution of reactions all the way back to the Big Bang.

Here are some scenarios:

1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.

In other words, we either have non-conscious reactions magically changing to conscious reactions at some point in time, or conscious reactions evolving over time.

...Consciousness is a phenomenon produced by large numbers of non-conscious objects acting in concert, but those constituent elements remain non-conscious; they don't change into conscious objects.

I presented a very simple dichotomy, tracing reactions back to the BB. Non-conscious objects are things that a consciousness manipulates following rules, such as when one (not 1 ) follows the axioms of arithmetic.

1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.

If you accept the truth of 1, you simply have conscious reactions evolving.

If you claim 2 is true, you have non-conscious reactions turning into conscious reactions.

Perhaps that is why you think of it as 'magical' - you think that each individual quanta of energy in the human CNS is conscious.

I was implying that people who believe that reactions changed from non-conscious to conscious are engaged in magical thinking, and deny that consciousness and consciousnesses have been evolving since the BB.

Do you really think that evolution transformed matter/energy into something completely different than what always existed, rather than just created new forms of the exact same stuff that always existed? Do you think that physicists and cosmologists are all incorrect, and that human consciousness is some new exotic form of matter/energy that has some magically new reactions to other reactions, instead of simply being another form of what is always reacting to itself and what it creates?

 

[bilby]

...Consciousness is a phenomenon produced by large numbers of non-conscious objects acting in concert, but those constituent elements remain non-conscious; they don't change into conscious objects.

I presented a very simple dichotomy, tracing reactions back to the BB. Non-conscious objects are things that a consciousness manipulates following rules, such as when one (not 1 ) follows the axioms of arithmetic.

1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.

If you accept the truth of 1, you simply have conscious reactions evolving.

If you claim 2 is true, you have non-conscious reactions turning into conscious reactions.

Perhaps that is why you think of it as 'magical' - you think that each individual quanta of energy in the human CNS is conscious.

I was implying that people who believe that reactions changed from non-conscious to conscious are engaged in magical thinking, and deny that consciousness and consciousnesses have been evolving since the BB.

Do you really think that evolution transformed matter/energy into something completely different than what always existed, rather than just created new forms of the exact same stuff that always existed? Do you think that physicists and cosmologists are all incorrect, and that human consciousness is some new exotic form of matter/energy that has some magically new reactions to other reactions, instead of simply being another form of what is always reacting to itself and what it creates?

Why do you imagine that consciousness is a different sort of stuff?

It seems more consistent with observation that consciousness is an emergent property of specific arrangements of stuff; in the same way that metabolism or photosynthesis are emergent properties of specific arrangements of stuff. Plants photosynthesise; living things metabolise; complex brains are conscious.

Do you imagine that subatomic particles are capable of photosynthesis; or do you accept that matter can photosynthesise only as a result of being arranged in particular complex patterns?

Why should we assume that the same is not true of consciousness?

 

[bigfield]

...Consciousness is a phenomenon produced by large numbers of non-conscious objects acting in concert, but those constituent elements remain non-conscious; they don't change into conscious objects.

I presented a very simple dichotomy, tracing reactions back to the BB. Non-conscious objects are things that a consciousness manipulates following rules, such as when one (not 1 ) follows the axioms of arithmetic.

1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.

If you accept the truth of 1, you simply have conscious reactions evolving.

If you claim 2 is true, you have non-conscious reactions turning into conscious reactions.

Perhaps that is why you think of it as 'magical' - you think that each individual quanta of energy in the human CNS is conscious.

I was implying that people who believe that reactions changed from non-conscious to conscious are engaged in magical thinking, and deny that consciousness and consciousnesses have been evolving since the BB.

Do you really think that evolution transformed matter/energy into something completely different than what always existed, rather than just created new forms of the exact same stuff that always existed? Do you think that physicists and cosmologists are all incorrect, and that human consciousness is some new exotic form of matter/energy that has some magically new reactions to other reactions, instead of simply being another form of what is always reacting to itself and what it creates?

I have not claimed that non-conscious reactions turn into conscious reactions. I am saying that the 'stuff' that makes up forms such as a human brain -- regardless of whether that refers to quanta of energy, atoms, molecules, or cells -- is non-conscious, and non-consciously produces a conscious mind.

As Bilby as explained, a brain's consciousness is an emergent behaviour specific to the formation of billions of atoms that is a brain, just as photosynthesis is an emergent behaviour of chloroplasts. At the subatomic level, it is all still the same non-conscious stuff, obeying the same laws of nature.

Your characterisation of this as non-conscious quanta of energy becoming conscious is utterly incorrect.

 

[Kharakov]

It seems more consistent with observation that consciousness is an emergent property of specific arrangements of stuff; in the same way that metabolism or photosynthesis are emergent properties of specific arrangements of stuff. Plants photosynthesise; living things metabolise; complex brains are conscious.

Particles bonded together create different structure fields because of the properties they have. The fields can be seen as unitary phenomena, if one looks at the combined action of the many different individual fields as a single phenomena. The individuals within the field respond to the field as if it were one field, while participating in the generation of the field at the same time.

The interaction between individuals and fields has been going on since the BB. Since fields interact with fields and individuals, and individuals interact with fields and individuals, there is nothing different about a human consciousness reciprocally interacting with individuals within it, nor their interaction with it.

Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less responsive to certain fields. Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less, supportive of certain fields. Individuals generate their own field, and feel fields, whether they are human scale, smaller, or larger.

a brain's consciousness is an emergent behaviour specific to the formation of billions of atoms that is a brain, just as photosynthesis is an emergent behaviour of chloroplasts.

That misses out on the interactions always being between the individual fields participated in by many individuals and the individuals.

Individuals and fields that individuals project have interacted with one another since the BB, at a minimum. The interaction of individuals to fields and other individuals has evolved over time, so now many individuals create a united field in a human brain that interacts with them as an individual field that is connected to a big field.


We still have the dichotomy:
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.

 

[bilby]

Particles bonded together create different structure fields because of the properties they have. The fields can be seen as unitary phenomena, if one looks at the combined action of the many different individual fields as a single phenomena. The individuals within the field respond to the field as if it were one field, while participating in the generation of the field at the same time.

The interaction between individuals and fields has been going on since the BB. Since fields interact with fields and individuals, and individuals interact with fields and individuals, there is nothing different about a human consciousness reciprocally interacting with individuals within it, nor their interaction with it.

Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less responsive to certain fields. Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less, supportive of certain fields. Individuals generate their own field, and feel fields, whether they are human scale, smaller, or larger.

None of which addresses the question of non-brain consciousness at all.

Obviously consciousness interacts with the physical world; The brain instructs the body, and the body interacts with the wider world. That doesn't make consciousness a property of anything other than brains.

(mis)using the word 'field' to hint at some undisclosed wider consciousness doesn't add anything to your case. Abusing the word 'individual' to apply to non-living physical objects serves to obscure, rather than clarify. Everything is fields; nothing, apart from brains, is conscious - in the same way that nothing, apart from chloroplasts, is capable of photosynthesising carbon dioxide and water into sugars.

a brain's consciousness is an emergent behaviour specific to the formation of billions of atoms that is a brain, just as photosynthesis is an emergent behaviour of chloroplasts.

That misses out on the interactions always being between the individual fields participated in by many individuals and the individuals.

Individuals and fields that individuals project have interacted with one another since the BB, at a minimum. The interaction of individuals to fields and other individuals has evolved over time, so now many individuals create a united field in a human brain that interacts with them as an individual field that is connected to a big field.


We still have the dichotomy:
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.
--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.

Horseshit.

Our actions are the sum of the interactions of various particles and fields, which are non-conscious physical entities. Those interactions can, over time, and in appropriate conditions, result in the emergence of higher level attributes of certain complex structures. Amongst these emergent attributes are reproduction, metabolism, motility, consciousness, photosynthesis, and a host of other things; The most important of which is reproduction - once that attribute is present, natural selection can generate the other attributes despite the very high level of complexity they require.

Consciousness is not particularly special; it is one of a host of characteristics that are unique to highly complex systems, and that do not exist at the level of the components of those systems.

A piece of steel is not a car; an iron atom is not a car; 'carness' is a property of a complex pattern of steel, rubber, plastics, lubricants, fuels and fabrics, that we call a car.

A neuron is not conscious; a protein is not conscious; a carbon atom is not conscious; consciousness is a property of a complex pattern of a wide variety of complex cells, that we call a brain.

 

[Kharakov]

Everything is fields; nothing, apart from brains, is conscious

That's not true. We have the same exact 2 options on the table:

Either:
Everything that reacts is conscious, which is how it reacts (it is aware of stuff and reacts to it).
- Numbers do not react, they are a product of consciousness following axioms and are not conscious themselves and require a consciousness to sustain their existence.

Or:
All reactions of everything were non-conscious from the big bang until magically, when something reacted and formed a bit of spine (a CNS), it was magically conscious, rather than non-conscious. The other emergent behaviors that exist in various groups of what exists were all non-conscious, but special magical forms of energy magically were consciously reacting when they were grouped into a CNS, unlike everything else in the universe which was reacting and composed of the same exact material, but was magically non consciously reacting.
-these consciousness that magically react to things consciously instead of the way everything else in the universe reacts were so unique and special that they realized that all other reactions in the universe, except for theirs, were non-conscious.
- they made up true, totally non fictional stories, I mean facts, about how non-conscious reactions magically turned conscious when they were in the brains of these super unique entities that had evolved out of the reactions of non-consciously reacting material that magically reacted consciously when they were the material that was acting, because they are so special.

 

[bilby]

Everything is fields; nothing, apart from brains, is conscious

That's not true. We have the same exact 2 options on the table:

Either:
Everything that reacts is conscious, which is how it reacts (it is aware of stuff and reacts to it).
- Numbers do not react, they are a product of consciousness following axioms and are not conscious themselves and require a consciousness to sustain their existence.

Or:
All reactions of everything were non-conscious from the big bang until magically replicators arose, that could be acted upon by natural selection, evolving more and more complex structures to compete for resources, until something reacted and formed a bit of spine (a CNS), it was magically conscious, rather than non-conscious; in the exact same way that other complex structures came to be photosynthesisers rather than non-photosynthesisers. The other emergent behaviors that exist in various groups of what exists were all non-conscious by definition, but special magical forms of energy magically were consciously reacting neurons could become part of a conscious entity when they were grouped into a CNS, unlike everything else in the universe which was reacting and composed of the same exact material, but was magically not arranged in such a pattern, and so continued non consciously reacting; and in exactly the same way that everything in the universe that was not organised into a chloroplast continued not to photosynthesise.
-these consciousness that magically by definition react to things consciously instead of the way everything else in the universe reacts were so unique and special that they realized as one of their many emergent abilities, could observe that all other reactions in the universe, except for theirs, were non-conscious.
- they made up true, totally non fictional stories, I mean facts, about observed how non-conscious reactions magically turned added up to the emergent property of being conscious when they were in the brains of these super unique those entities that had evolved out of the reactions of non-consciously reacting material that magically reacted consciously when they were the material that was acting part of a sufficiently complex structure, because they are so special. consciousness is observed to be an attribute only of highly complex systems.

FTFY.

There is no magic involved; although it seems very common for humans to attribute the things they do not comprehend to magic.

I have filled in the gaps in your knowledge that you have indicated in your response by the use of the word 'magic', so hopefully you will be able to fill in those gaps with something more useful than a place-holder for 'I don't know' in future.

There is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance; it gains you a lot more respect than invoking magic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

although it seems very common for humans to attribute the things they do not comprehend to magic. .

And especially common when the woo-fans are trying to insult their critics.

 

[Kharakov]

There is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance; it gains you a lot more respect than invoking magic.

It's like I'm talking to creationists who are so set on holding onto their incorrect beliefs, that they will make up anything to justify them. I have to admit that I used to say the same incorrect bullshit that you're saying now when I was thirteen, when I based all my ideas about reality from the idea of non-conscious natural law determining things up until a certain threshold of complexity. I argued emergence, and all the other incorrect positions you are regurgitating.

Anyways..

Reactions of matter/energy have been evolving for a long time. Every state of any matter/energy is preceded by another state of the exact same stuff, with the exact same properties, except for the specific forms that it is in.

One of the properties of matter/energy is that it reacts to other matter/energy. Sometimes a specific form of it is caused that is a bit full of itself, and believes that it has an additional property that all other matter and energy lack, instead of simply being a different form of the same stuff, with the same fundamental reactions.

This ignorant form of matter/energy thinks that it reacts consciously, but all other reactions that do not resemble its own are non-conscious. It doesn't consider that an apparently complex larger single reaction to many smaller reactions does not indicate that the smaller reactors with other forms lack the same exact primary attribute of conscious reaction to other forms that the larger, apparently more complex entity has.

 

[Cobalt]

One might wonder if a syringe containing propofol regains consciousness after being emptied... Kharrie you're too much.

 

[bilby]

There is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance; it gains you a lot more respect than invoking magic.

It's like I'm talking to creationists

Attempted ad-Hom

who are so set on holding onto their incorrect beliefs,

Unsupported assertion - you have yet to demonstrate that what I am saying is incorrect, or indeed, that it is a mere 'belief'.

that they will make up anything to justify them.

Actual ad-Hom. I am not 'making up' anything.

I have to admit that

well poisoning

I used to say the same incorrect bullshit

unsupported assertion

that you're saying now when I was thirteen,

Attempted ad-Hom

when I based all my ideas about reality from the idea of non-conscious natural law determining things up until a certain threshold of complexity.

If you think that I am suggesting for a moment that natural law does not apply at ALL levels of complexity, then you are very much mistaken (again). Consciousness is not an exception to natural law; it is a consequence of natural law as it applies to the specific class of complex systems we call 'brains'; in exactly the same way that photosynthesis is a consequence of natural law as it applies to the specific class of complex systems we call 'chloroplasts'. Systems have abilities that their parts do not. A pile of gears and springs does not have the same ability to show the passage of time as a watch.

I argued emergence, and all the other incorrect positions

Demonstrably incorrect assertion - telling time is an emergent property of watches; the parts do not tell the time, unless correctly assembled. Emergence is unquestionably a real thing; There is nothing incorrect about the position that a whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.

you are regurgitating.

ad-Hom

Anyways..

Reactions of matter/energy have been evolving for a long time.

Statement too vague to convey any information; evolving is a property of living entities, not of 'reactions of matter/energy', which is a far broader class of objects.

Every state of any matter/energy is preceded by another state of the exact same stuff, with the exact same properties, except for the specific forms that it is in.

Statement far to vague to convey any information. 'Stuff is exactly the same as the preceding stuff, except in the ways that it is different'. Deep.

One of the properties of matter/energy is that it reacts to other matter/energy.

Again, too vague to be meaningful. Interactions between matter and energy are many and varied; In some cases matter and/or energy interact strongly, and in other cases weakly or not at all.

Sometimes a specific form of it is caused that is a bit full of itself, and believes that it has an additional property that all other matter and energy lack, instead of simply being a different form of the same stuff, with the same fundamental reactions.

Unsupported assertion; attempted ad-Hom

This ignorant form of matter/energy thinks that it reacts consciously, but all other reactions that do not resemble its own are non-conscious.

Attempted ad-Hom.

It doesn't consider that an apparently complex larger single reaction to many smaller reactions does not indicate that the smaller reactors with other forms lack the same exact primary attribute of conscious reaction to other forms that the larger, apparently more complex entity has.

Word salad. No information conveyed. You appear to be trying to assert that the parts of any complex structure are necessarily equal in complexity to the whole, but as that would be self-evidently stupid, I have to assume that you are trying to say something else - and failing.



Well that's a sad litany of fallacies sprinkled with lots of vacuous verbiage conveying exactly nothing.

Our actions are the sum of the interactions of various particles and fields, which are non-conscious physical entities. Those interactions can, over time, and in appropriate conditions, result in the emergence of higher level attributes of certain complex structures. Amongst these emergent attributes are reproduction, metabolism, motility, consciousness, photosynthesis, and a host of other things; The most important of which is reproduction - once that attribute is present, natural selection can generate the other attributes despite the very high level of complexity they require.

Consciousness is not particularly special; it is one of a host of characteristics that are unique to highly complex systems, and that do not exist at the level of the components of those systems.

A piece of steel is not a car; an iron atom is not a car; 'carness' is a property of a complex pattern of steel, rubber, plastics, lubricants, fuels and fabrics, that we call a car.

A neuron is not conscious; a protein is not conscious; a carbon atom is not conscious; consciousness is a property of a complex pattern of a wide variety of complex cells, that we call a brain.

You are yet to show that your bizarre insistence that subatomic particles are conscious is anything other than the Fallacy of Division; certainly you are not going to successfully demonstrate this as true by sneering at the reasoning that shows it to be false, nor by retreating into vague statements about ill-defined properties you assert that matter/energy might have without a shred of evidence.

 

[bigfield]

Particles bonded together create different structure fields because of the properties they have. The fields can be seen as unitary phenomena, if one looks at the combined action of the many different individual fields as a single phenomena. The individuals within the field respond to the field as if it were one field, while participating in the generation of the field at the same time.

The interaction between individuals and fields has been going on since the BB. Since fields interact with fields and individuals, and individuals interact with fields and individuals, there is nothing different about a human consciousness reciprocally interacting with individuals within it, nor their interaction with it.

Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less responsive to certain fields. Depending upon their structure, individuals are more, or less, supportive of certain fields. Individuals generate their own field, and feel fields, whether they are human scale, smaller, or larger.

a brain's consciousness is an emergent behaviour specific to the formation of billions of atoms that is a brain, just as photosynthesis is an emergent behaviour of chloroplasts.

That misses out on the interactions always being between the individual fields participated in by many individuals and the individuals.

Individuals and fields that individuals project have interacted with one another since the BB, at a minimum. The interaction of individuals to fields and other individuals has evolved over time, so now many individuals create a united field in a human brain that interacts with them as an individual field that is connected to a big field.

The old 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit' line of persuasion.

We still have the dichotomy:
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.

Refuted by the evidence.

--or--
2) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which lacks consciousness yet has the ability to react to itself, into new forms, of which some have the additional ability to react consciously.

Makes sense.

 

[Kharakov]

It's like I'm talking to creationists

Attempted ad-Hom

Poo flinger accusing someone of throwing poo? oooohhhh!!

 

[bilby]

Attempted ad-Hom

Poo flinger accusing someone of throwing poo? oooohhhh!!

So you have given up trying to provide substantive arguments for your position?

I am unsurprised, but a little disappointed that you couldn't bring yourself to at least admit that you were wrong.

 

[Kharakov]

We still have the dichotomy:
1) Our reactions are evolved reactions of the fundamental substance of all being, which is conscious (which is why it reacts), into new forms of consciousness.

Refuted by the evidence.

Not at all. Emergence is not evidence. Precise reactions on the smallest scale are not evidence. Regular reactions are not evidence.

What we have here is a semi-complex reactor (a human consciousness) reacting to other reactors believing that other reactors are non-conscious without any evidence that they are actually non-conscious.

We have the conscious ability to create imaginary scenarios, such as the scenario in which non-conscious reactions become conscious when they reach a certain threshold of complexity.

However complexity != consciousness, just like simplicity != non-consciousness.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Johnny the photon sped across the Universe. After the first million years, Johnny thought, "Damn this is boring!" Johnny did not likr to think about the fact that if he ever collided with anything, the matter would absorb him and he'd cease to exist.

Uhmmmmm, particles have consciousness? Your brain has something along the line a X 10**27 atoms, and of course more than that if one considers quarks, gluons, and other basic particles. How does this all supposed to work as a coherent whole?

This is basically hylozoism, and was abandoned many centuries ago, for good reason, only to be replaced by dualism. The equally silly hypothesis of existence of souls.

 

[bilby]

Refuted by the evidence.

Not at all. Emergence is not evidence. Precise reactions on the smallest scale are not evidence. Regular reactions are not evidence.

What we have here is a semi-complex reactor (a human consciousness) reacting to other reactors believing that other reactors are non-conscious without any evidence that they are actually non-conscious.

We have the conscious ability to create imaginary scenarios, such as the scenario in which non-conscious reactions become conscious when they reach a certain threshold of complexity.

However complexity != consciousness, just like simplicity != non-consciousness.

Emergence isn't evidence - it is an explanation for the evidence.

The evidence is that entities with working brains behave in ways that other entities do not.

Complexity is a necessary, but not a sufficient, requirement for consciousness.

Complexity!=car-ness, but simplicity=non car-ness. A piece of steel is not a car; a complex arrangement of pieces of steel is not necessarily a car; but a car is a complex arrangement of pieces of steel.

Consciousness is a property of the specific class of highly complex arrangements of cells called 'brains'. It is not just the inevitable consequence of 'reach[ing] a certain threshold of complexity'; that is your strawman.

This is my hypothesis - consciousness cannot exist without a complex pattern of actively interacting parts (what we commonly call a 'brain'); you can falsify it by showing a single counterexample. But you make no attempt to do this - instead you make subtle (and not so subtle) slurs against me, repeat your assertion ad-nauseum without evidence, and continue to engage in logical fallacies even after these have been brought to your attention. You make no attempt whatsoever to actually positively support your assertion, and instead attack your opponents integrity and style of discourse.

This is a clear sign that you have nothing to support your position at all.

You need to provide some evidence or examples; or you need to withdraw your claim. Any other course of action just makes you look petty and foolish.