2500 years ago Buddha said 'consciousness exists in the stone', lately scientists determine that 'consciousness is a fundamental property of

Scientists have determined that consciousness does not form in the brain and must originate from some source that the brain can pick up from  but what, where and how?

According to the definition I use, "consciousness" is the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
Any one who says any matter has a "consciousness" will have to prove to me that it's aware of its surroundings.
I would even make it simple for them ... just prove a rock is aware of its surroundings.

When you sleep you are not unconscious. 

The idea is that the rock (matter) has consciousness but does not have the animal/human brain required to create awareness from it.

Then they need to define what they mean by "consciousness".
Every definition I can find includes "awareness" in some form.

Alternate theory of consciousness: some philosophers and scientists have adopted an alternative view, that consciousness is not a direct product of the brain but a fundamental quality- like mass or gravity- a basic quality of material particles.

-The conversation.com.

Consciousness as a basis that enables life to begin from non-living matter, when life ends you are not 100% dead but you return to the original state of consciousness sans awareness again.

Consciousness as the force that enables a placebo to be effective... 

'Your inner strength'.

Sounds a lot like "Universal Consciousness", to me.
Which is a religious, rather than scientific, debate.

I think consciousness can mean states of awareness as well as a natural alternative force rather than believing in supernatural/spiritual forces.

 

  Technically speaking, you can’t cite Kit for starting a sentence using numbers and then in your example of the correct way to write numbers, you’ve written numbers, only you’ve spelled them out using letters and words.

  It would be more accurate to state that a sentence cannot start expressed by numbers instead of letters.
~

Or "numerals."

 

  Prior to posting my response to you, I sought the definitions of the words “number, numbers, numeral, numerals, numerical, numerically”, etc. I discovered that each of them has connotations for both numbers written in word form and for those written in numerical form (raw numbers or number symbols). As such, it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what one means in comparing one method to the other method merely by using one of the words. 

  “Numerals” can be represented either way. When numerals are written out in word form using letters, they are still numerals. For instance, the words “fox, dog, horse, alligator” are all animals in at least one of their respective definitions, so they are also animals. “Cup, glass, plate, saucer, fork” are all dishes and utensils or dining-related in at least one of their respective definitions. “Bone, skin, vein, bladder” are all anatomy-related. “Seven, ninety thousand, ten, eighty-four” are all numbers, as are “7, 90,000, 10, 84”.
~

But twenty-five hundred is a number expressed in words, while 2,500 is expressed in numerals. Words are words and numerals are numerals! Grrrrr.

 

  Ok, here we go again. Words are words and numerals are numerals, you’re absolutely right.

  Twenty-five hundred is a numeral too. A numeral that is written out in word form.
~

Twenty-five hundred is a number, 2500 is group of numerals. Grrrrr.

 

 I agree, 2500 is a group of numerals that is written in numerical form, and twenty-five hundred is a number that represents that same numeral written in word form. The numerical form should not be used to start sentences.

My original point exactly!