Most Scientists Believe In God

[anotherlife]

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

Plus you can't establish a verifiable direct connection between consciousness and the human mind.

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.
View attachment 64335
.

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

 

[ChrisL]

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

Plus you can't establish a verifiable direct connection between consciousness and the human mind.

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.
View attachment 64335
.

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

I remember some things from when I was a baby/young toddler. There are a couple of events and recurring dreams that I've had that I can remember.

 

[PK1]

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

Plus you can't establish a verifiable direct connection between consciousness and the human mind.

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.
View attachment 64335
.

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

---
Do you have your own definition of "conscientiousness"?
The common definition:
"Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well."
Did you mean "consciousness"?

I disagree; a mind is more than "switching nodes".
There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

Switching nodes may reflect AI, but not the human mind, which reflects understanding of its position in the ecological context and related motivation.

A toddler is obviously a conscious human, but his/her understanding of external phenomena & their relations are limited by insufficient experiences, which form long-term memories after rational & or emotionally significant consolidations.
.

 

[anotherlife]

Plus you can't establish a verifiable direct connection between consciousness and the human mind.

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.
View attachment 64335
.

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

I remember some things from when I was a baby/young toddler. There are a couple of events and recurring dreams that I've had that I can remember.

This is interesting. Such memories and dreams are frequently linked with emotional events. A scientific debate does exist in the literature, that emotions exist without mind and without consciousness, and emotions represent the basic processing blocks, from which mental patterns and consciousness are built.

 

[anotherlife]

Plus you can't establish a verifiable direct connection between consciousness and the human mind.

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.
View attachment 64335
.

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

---
Do you have your own definition of "conscientiousness"?
The common definition:
"Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well."
Did you mean "consciousness"?

I disagree; a mind is more than "switching nodes".
There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

Switching nodes may reflect AI, but not the human mind, which reflects understanding of its position in the ecological context and related motivation.

A toddler is obviously a conscious human, but his/her understanding of external phenomena & their relations are limited by insufficient experiences, which form long-term memories after rational & or emotionally significant consolidations.
.

Oops sorry I meant consciousness, the spell corrector play a few games.

There is no necessity for a biological system, when you are implementing a mind. So, on scientific basis, I must disagree with you here.

A toddlers consciousness is a subset of the structural patterns that have been predefined to create the entire universe. Our observations of it is distorted by the same timing artifacts as every human mind operates by. This is what makes it appear limited. And in this respect, there is no logical difference between observing a toddlers consciousness and observing the consciousness of anything else. So now we are down to a problem of simple relative volumes.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

There is a biological structure underlying the mind ...


they are distinct

there is lacking in your qualification of consciousness the intangible qualities as reason that transverse the beings physiology, as a Spiritual existence which is the primary role in establishing the content and purpose that defines the being and their particular uniqueness. the physiology of humanity is identical.

and whether the Spirit is detachable from its physiology, a floating consciousness that has never been proven irregardless the desired results of religious rhetoric (resurrection) the Spirit does exist in unison and the two are distinct. consciousness does not regulate the heart.

.

 

[ChrisL]

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.
View attachment 64335
.

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

I remember some things from when I was a baby/young toddler. There are a couple of events and recurring dreams that I've had that I can remember.

This is interesting. Such memories and dreams are frequently linked with emotional events. A scientific debate does exist in the literature, that emotions exist without mind and without consciousness, and emotions represent the basic processing blocks, from which mental patterns and consciousness are built.

I don't mean when I was an infant. I mean when I was crawling/walking, so probably 10 months old to a year is what I can remember and only a couple events and a few dreams I had when very small (probably a toddler), so I had consciousness and a mind.

 

[ChrisL]

Don't other people remember things from when they were a baby? I mean like one or two events or anything at all? Maybe I'm just weird.

 

[PK1]

Don't other people remember things from when they were a baby? I mean like one or two events or anything at all? Maybe I'm just weird.

---
My earliest memories are from age 2 when i had a traumatic event reflecting correlated images associated with my ambulance ride to the ER.

What memories do you have ... when you were an old crawler & barely walking?
.

 

[ChrisL]

Don't other people remember things from when they were a baby? I mean like one or two events or anything at all? Maybe I'm just weird.

---
My earliest memories are from age 2 when i had a traumatic event reflecting correlated images associated with my ambulance ride to the ER.

What memories do you have ... when you were an old crawler & barely walking?
.

Well . . . let me just say that my mom wasn't very patient or kind with me as a young one, so I have a few bad memories of her. I also had some nightmares about her when I was a very small child that I still remember clearly to this day.

 

[PK1]

There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

There is a biological structure underlying the mind ...


they are distinct

there is lacking in your qualification of consciousness the intangible qualities as reason that transverse the beings physiology, as a Spiritual existence which is the primary role in establishing the content and purpose that defines the being and their particular uniqueness. the physiology of humanity is identical.

and whether the Spirit is detachable from its physiology, a floating consciousness that has never been proven irregardless the desired results of religious rhetoric (resurrection) the Spirit does exist in unison and the two are distinct. consciousness does not regulate the heart.

.

---
Let's agree to disagree.
Why do you believe in the "spiritual" world, when there is no evidence to support it?
.

 

[PK1]

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.
View attachment 64335
.

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

---
Do you have your own definition of "conscientiousness"?
The common definition:
"Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well."
Did you mean "consciousness"?

I disagree; a mind is more than "switching nodes".
There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

Switching nodes may reflect AI, but not the human mind, which reflects understanding of its position in the ecological context and related motivation.

A toddler is obviously a conscious human, but his/her understanding of external phenomena & their relations are limited by insufficient experiences, which form long-term memories after rational & or emotionally significant consolidations.
.

There is no necessity for a biological system, when you are implementing a mind. So, on scientific basis, I must disagree with you here.

A toddlers consciousness is a subset of the structural patterns that have been predefined to create the entire universe.
.

---
On a scientific basis? I disagree.
Your basis is religious, and you appear confident about your "faith", with no evidence. How did you derive your beliefs?
.

 

[PK1]

Don't other people remember things from when they were a baby? I mean like one or two events or anything at all? Maybe I'm just weird.

---
My earliest memories are from age 2 when i had a traumatic event reflecting correlated images associated with my ambulance ride to the ER.

What memories do you have ... when you were an old crawler & barely walking?
.

Well . . . let me just say that my mom wasn't very patient or kind with me as a young one, so I have a few bad memories of her. I also had some nightmares about her when I was a very small child that I still remember clearly to this day.

---
Extreme emotions (esp trauma) have a strong influence in the consolidation of long-term memories, which also make appearances in dreams, if you remember them (usually when waking during, or at dream's end).
.

 

[BreezeWood]

Let's agree to disagree.

.
the confusion is souly your own ...

were there an Everlasting as surly there must be one's attachment can only be Spiritual for whomever may accomplish an everlasting presence.

.

 

[OZman]

 

[anotherlife]

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

I remember some things from when I was a baby/young toddler. There are a couple of events and recurring dreams that I've had that I can remember.

This is interesting. Such memories and dreams are frequently linked with emotional events. A scientific debate does exist in the literature, that emotions exist without mind and without consciousness, and emotions represent the basic processing blocks, from which mental patterns and consciousness are built.

I don't mean when I was an infant. I mean when I was crawling/walking, so probably 10 months old to a year is what I can remember and only a couple events and a few dreams I had when very small (probably a toddler), so I had consciousness and a mind.

Exactly, you have now provided further proof that consciousness exists in everything, and an easier test of this is to probe ones early childhood. The theory of induction wins again. Atheist scientists want the tail to wag the dog. Will never achieve it, no matter how much they spend on bullying the world.

 

[anotherlife]

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

---
Do you have your own definition of "conscientiousness"?
The common definition:
"Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well."
Did you mean "consciousness"?

I disagree; a mind is more than "switching nodes".
There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

Switching nodes may reflect AI, but not the human mind, which reflects understanding of its position in the ecological context and related motivation.

A toddler is obviously a conscious human, but his/her understanding of external phenomena & their relations are limited by insufficient experiences, which form long-term memories after rational & or emotionally significant consolidations.
.

There is no necessity for a biological system, when you are implementing a mind. So, on scientific basis, I must disagree with you here.

A toddlers consciousness is a subset of the structural patterns that have been predefined to create the entire universe.
.

---
On a scientific basis? I disagree.
Your basis is religious, and you appear confident about your "faith", with no evidence. How did you derive your beliefs?
.

On a scientific basis. In science, if you postulate a necessity, you need to prove it. You have not proven your biological necessity. On the other hand, everything I wrote has been done in software and sold. Whilst I believe in the Holly Trinity, I was writing here from a scientific point of view, and it is just an "accident" that now, as usual, it coincides with what the Gospels have already published about all of this.

 

[hangover]

There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

There is a biological structure underlying the mind ...


they are distinct

there is lacking in your qualification of consciousness the intangible qualities as reason that transverse the beings physiology, as a Spiritual existence which is the primary role in establishing the content and purpose that defines the being and their particular uniqueness. the physiology of humanity is identical.

and whether the Spirit is detachable from its physiology, a floating consciousness that has never been proven irregardless the desired results of religious rhetoric (resurrection) the Spirit does exist in unison and the two are distinct. consciousness does not regulate the heart.

.

---
Let's agree to disagree.
Why do you believe in the "spiritual" world, when there is no evidence to support it?
.

Asking that question is not "agreeing to disagree", it's just refusing to look at the evidence.
Rationally Speaking: Does the soul weigh 21 grams?

 

[PK1]

Let's agree to disagree.

.
the confusion is souly your own ...

were there an Everlasting as surly there must be one's attachment can only be Spiritual for whomever may accomplish an everlasting presence.

.

---
How am i "confused"?
You're the one who either does not understand my Q or avoids answering:
Why do you believe in the "Spiritual" when there is no evidence to support it?
.

 

[PK1]

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

There is no biological precondition to having a mind, only switching nodes.

By my statement of qualifying conscientiousness, I meant that it is never objective but always subjective. A mind can probably be measured "objectively", because it directly interacts with its environment, which is observable. But conscientiousness is a purely internal function, so always subjective. In fact, there was a post somewhere that reported that mainstream philosophers reject conscientiousness too except for the purpose of speculatively compare ones own to others.

You can test the subjective nature of conscientiousness though. For example, nobody remembers his time of life before learning to speak. But are toddlers not conscientious? So, logically, various densities of conscientiousness must exist in everything, even the most primitive structure, maybe even a stone. Induction as a theory always works.

---
Do you have your own definition of "conscientiousness"?
The common definition:
"Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well."
Did you mean "consciousness"?

I disagree; a mind is more than "switching nodes".
There is a biological structure underlying the mind that relates not only to basic awareness (consciousness), but also to understanding & emotional feedback.

Switching nodes may reflect AI, but not the human mind, which reflects understanding of its position in the ecological context and related motivation.

A toddler is obviously a conscious human, but his/her understanding of external phenomena & their relations are limited by insufficient experiences, which form long-term memories after rational & or emotionally significant consolidations.
.

There is no necessity for a biological system, when you are implementing a mind. So, on scientific basis, I must disagree with you here.

A toddlers consciousness is a subset of the structural patterns that have been predefined to create the entire universe.
.

---
On a scientific basis? I disagree.
Your basis is religious, and you appear confident about your "faith", with no evidence. How did you derive your beliefs?
.

On a scientific basis. In science, if you postulate a necessity, you need to prove it. You have not proven your biological necessity. On the other hand, everything I wrote has been done in software and sold. Whilst I believe in the Holly Trinity, I was writing here from a scientific point of view, and it is just an "accident" that now, as usual, it coincides with what the Gospels have already published about all of this.

---
It's clear to me that you don't understand modern science. There is plenty of evidence for direct relations between mind & brain.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to substantiate your claim that consciousness can occur without a biological CNS.
Your belief in Abrahamic religious dogma has no scientific merit.
.