The argument you presented has some flaws. While we don't fully understand the "correlates of consciousness", it is unlikely that modifying or removing neurons one by one would leave consciousness intact. Consciousness seems to depend on the emergent properties of complex neural networks, not individual neurons. Furthermore, there is no evidence that neurons can be transformed into completely different objects while maintaining consciousness. Rocks and other non-biological objects lack the biological machinery required for consciousness, so they cannot exhibit consciousness simply by modification. Your argument jumps to an unreasonable conclusion not supported by evidence or scientific understanding. A more measured perspective is needed on the nature of consciousness and what gives rise to it. You argue that consciousness can be maintained while modifying or removing components (like neurons) one by one. 
**But is there any evidence that consciousness works this way? 
Don't emergent properties of complex systems depend on the interactions between many components, not just individual components? 
And isn't the type of components important too, like biological neurons vs. non-biological objects? 
Without evidence, why should we accept that consciousness can be maintained or produced in just any system by incremental changes? 
Aren't we better off relying on what we know about biology and neuroscience, rather than unsupported logical arguments?**
spam lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor creativity violence