@aperson,
At the very heights of comprehension it becomes clear that awareness is much more than we had previously thought, also much less in countering areas of thought. For a construct to be defined as 'aware' requires only the presentation of 'sleep state' discomfort.. Which is a response to any stimuli presented, a response which arrives from within the subject. Surprisingly these responses occur in all manner of collected energy constructs, not just material biological/bio electrical life forms.
From the above as a scientific provability (which science is reluctant to evidence, given the God debates etc) we can extrapolate that to be 'alive'.. Is something other than merely to be 'aware'. We can further state that being 'alive' can probably be accurately assigned to those constructs which reach the level of non stimulated action, that is to say, 'self initiated' action or thought without direct leading input.. In my estimation this is not happening at any time around conception, not happening for the length of time in the womb and finally only eventually starting, when a child learns to 'request'.. previously ascertained responses from parents. Then your child is alive, not only merely aware and reacting to input in a manner not orchestrated, as was previously the case.
What this means is that we have to decide which to believe of one of the following:
A:
Awareness is life and we have to accept that to damage any material construct or energy construct, non verified as 'stateless' as life, or we risk breaking ethical codes of conduct that we ignore.
B:
Awareness is merely 'potential life', therefore the moving or reassigning of it's base values is not in direct contravention of any ethical advancement we might extrapolate from the world; as required.
Above is why Buddhist monks tread carefully and remove even the earthworms from the ground their temples are to be built on, also why the scientist defines clarities which perplex around the nature of life.
With respect.
D.
