Pathetic. Because people understood yo, it is just that th discussion you want to have doesn’t make sense unless everyone agrees on the basic definitions. Since you said you were interested in debate and all I mean…maybe by “debate” you meant “mutual admiration society”?
<Delightedly clapping, raptly attentive> yes yes! Please continue!
I wish I could be understood.
You’ve got to hook me up with your dealer, man.
Sorry, no dealer, but after reading your post and looking up thread, I think I realized: birth and death are horrible controlling influences.
I wish there could be understanding. At least in this thread.
Consciousness, being a part of the natural world, is part of the cosmos by definition, so I don’t quite get your point. And, btw , cogito ergo sum (well, someone had to say it.)
The cosmos did fine without any consciousness in it - if you think consciousness can exist without the cosmos, I’m going to need some evidence.
My reading 900 pages of General Semantics in high school comes through again.
Martin Luther King is both a real person and a bunch of tags placed on the real person. Some of the tags are the heroic King - the ones filtering out his real flaws. Back then there were tags for an evil King, created by his enemies. Associated with him are tags for the spirit you mentioned. Even after the real King is dead, all these survive, and the imperfection of biography mean they are all that is left.
It is certainly possible that the spirit tag might some day become disconnected from King, and attach itself to an imaginary folk hero. But if this happens, or even the survival of the distorted tags of King, does not mean that King survived death in any way. The real one is gone, the tags associated with him live on. If there was a historic King Arthur, hos "spirit"has become absolutely disconnected from the real person, as another example.
This does not follow. Everything is a property of the cosmos. Hemorrhoids are a property of cosmos. That doesn’t mean there is only one hemorhoid. While it’s true (and philosophically interesting) that consciousness can be said to be a property of the universe itself (and even fairly said that it represents the universe being conscious of itself in a way), each individual human consciousness is still a unique and discrete event. There is no unitive or collective quality to them. No singularity.
Itaque cur pones?
Everything in the universe is a cosmological event. That statement doesn’t mean anything, nor does it contradict anything being purely physical. It’s essentiallythe same statement. “Afterlife” beliefs and “souls,” and the like actually posit ]non-cosmological phenomena.
Consciouness doesn’t do anything.
You scored big today, didn’t you?
I agree.
What about this scenario? Back to the beginning. Everything would be fine then, too. Better even.
That is indeed the debate.
Hey! I’m gonna make you take that back! Soon as I find my shoes! OK, went and got cookies and Funyums, wore them then. Wait…no, its winter, definitely wore the shoes, would have noticed that right away! Came home, took them off, and ate the…Wait, no, no I didn’t. Still have them on! Far out! Oh, *there’*s the Funyums!
What?
Actually, yeah, I’ll ratify that one too.
In the sense that there is only one object (the cosmos in its entirety) except insofar as we, with our minds, chop it up into smaller bits and treat them as separate, there is also only one consciousness. (Although as I said above I actually think the characteristic is something of which consciousness, as we usually think of it, is a subset). Do you feel understood yet? 
If only someone at the top of the thread had asked us to define our terms before we started using them as though we all shared their meanings…if only…if only…
I’ve read pretty much everything Dawkins has written. You’ll have to enlighten me as to what assertions you have a problem with.
Does this include the stuff that got created with our stuff in the Big Bang, but which is now beyond our event horizon? Is that stuff the same as our stuff?
Well, even if there is a soul, it might be part of the cosmos, and so wouldn’t exist if there was no cosmos. Perhaps souls got created in the Big Bang, after all even materialists think that what passes for souls (personalities) get created in a sense during a little bang.
I remember an sf story from a long time ago where there was a finite number of souls, and the increased population meant that we ran out, and new babies were born without them.
That explains Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers.
The same assertions I mentioned earlier, that you have presented neither experimental evidence for, nor arguments and experiments that suggest alternate explanations are insufficient. You know, to use the OP’s term, science-y stuff and all.