> But don't want to get into the philosophy of it. I'd urge you to consider the definition of conciousness (as specified by the original question) wasn't just a

> But don't want to get into the philosophy of it. I'd urge you to consider the definition of conciousness (as specified by the original question) wasn't just about biology. And it is 100% very difficult to define. No. I don't engage in the philosophy of it because most of the consciousness philosophy that gets bandied about and is familiar to folks is from 20-30 years ago, and rest on knowledge that is significantly less granular about details. You don't, for instance, demand physicists need to engage in the philosophy of gravity do you? You demand theory. Neuroscience does the same of consciousness, and there are definite theories with support coming at the problem from different ends. Insisting it's a mystery without engaging with the facts is not what I'm interested in. > We've known life and death for quite some time. Even from the biological perspective, there's nothing new there in the largest sense. All we've done is refine it. Animals are aware of it. Not quite sure what this means, but as with consciousness, I'd say life also isn't a complete mystery, we have made great strides understanding it as it is and it's evolution in the past few decades, and while the philosophy of life, mired in assumptions from past decades, remains hopelessly stalled, the science of life has simply moved on. > We only check clocks because we have an internal molecular dynamic that directs us to do so, and it is tied to a similar system as everything else. Is this tongue in cheek? Nothing about our internal molecular clock tells us to check clocks. For most of life, there were no manufactured clocks, remember? They are a relatively recent invention. Jeez.