Can I pick on Kant as the guy who said we can't ever ever ever know anything about the true nature of existence and about how this is an ad hoc argument to get around all the trouble that Hume fellow was causing at the time?
... we have already picked on Kant anout this, as we peers examine the evidence of a consistent and clear set of individual facts available to us all, as a group, to confirm empirically.
As the Scientific Method has grown to explain so much and produce a model of Reality which man images, we now can disagree with Kant in the specific claim, we can know Reality.
We can not disagree with Kant, however, that we are separated from Reality by the wall of our own senses that connect to us both, Reality and our minds which can merely think about it.
Truth is all we are privy to, but we can be rather certain that Truth corresponds one-to-one with a tangible essence common to us (peers) all.
Everything's been evolving for the same amount of time, and 99% of it is bacteria, fungi, plants, and protists. To characterize evolution in terms of "neural complexity" when nearly all life lacks a nervous system seems pretty misguided.
Everything's been evolving for the same amount of time, and 10% of it is the same initial protoplasm that appeared in some abiogenetic anomaly then experienced growth which fattened it up enough to split into more and more separate pieces.
The nervous system than developed from this growth, development, and maturity of that sole initial appearance of life is still alive, having merely shed worn out parts and rejuvenate itself through mitosis and miosis processes.
What Teilhard saw as Omega Point was the apparent directed evolution which seeks a more complicit relationship with Reality, one which will better guarantee the continued existence of this singular Life on earth by means of intelligent adaptation to the environment of the planet.
In the concept of Gia, man can look at his own appearance as the beginning of an end point to the meaning of Life, i.e.; survival.
you can't get two scientists to agree on what the hell "consciousness" means, this guy really can't argue for any sort of consensus based on "stages of consciousness".
That this is the case, simply means we are assured that our own understanding of Consciousness can not be scientifically disputed, hence is at least as good as those we are absent of or already debating about.
I suggest that you will all agree that Consciousness is the now exaggerated State-of-Mind previously a very short, almost instantaneous pause before an organism underwent a Reaction to Fear.
The very purpose of such a pause, even an extremely short pause initially, was for the purpose of evaluating the Reality which had suddenly unfolded. The only difference in man is that the pause has become 24/7, and rightly so, as the Fears increased with the increasing knowledge about that Reality which eternally befalls him.
Reality is the lord over all life and death.
. Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge:
Re: ..".all life" is really one living protoplasm...
This all sounds rather pantheistic to me, but since we are in a science forum, i wont comment further.
You are wise to fear the moderators wrath, but first had you been smelling religion creeping, in the term pan-en-theism would better apply.
But fear not, because the idea of all life being one is actually the science proposal called Gaia:
The hypothesis was formulated by the scientist James Lovelock and co-developed by the microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s. While early versions of the hypothesis were criticized for being teleological and contradicting principles of natural selection, later refinements have resulted in ideas highlighted by the Gaia Hypothesis being used in disciplines such as geophysiology, Earth system science, biogeochemistry, systems ecology, and climate science. In 2006, the Geological Society of London awarded Lovelock the Wollaston Medal largely for his work on the Gaia theory.