If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[bennyboy]

On the other hand, not being able to account for "the fact of its existence" isn't unique to the study of consciousness. How about life itself? We know lots about how various life processes are carried out but why are these materials organic? Biological organisms are not composed of a different set of elements from those which make up inorganic materials. Yet somehow, properly arranged, they become life.

In this context, what does "life" really mean? We are still talking about particles acting in accordance with mechanical principles, about which we already know. Even human behavior, when viewed through the mechanism of neurons, might (at least theoretically) be fully explained without reference to "actual" qualia-- operational responsiveness to the environment might explain all.

Or look at evo-devo, specifically the way an organism assembles itself. Sure there is information in the DNA which seems determinative of what the organism becomes .. but how? Creating tissues and organs and systems are all pretty amazing. But it happens. I don't think we have any more to say about the fact of this phenomenon's existence than we do the fact of consciousness' existence, but we do have a much more detailed account for the sequence of steps necessary for a single cell to become a complex organism such as ourselves.

It's true that there are many mysteries.

One is a mystery because we have not finished a fully-refined inquiry into its mechanical nature. The other is a mystery because we don't understand why any kind of mechanism allows/requires it, and because we cannot even make mechanical observations to confirm its existence in specific systems.

The problem with mind is that it is "extra" if it is assumed to be a representation of brain function and nothing more. It's easy to see why a brain would develop the ability to process information from its environment and produce behaviors that would promote the promulgation of its DNA. It's easy to see why the human body would cry to relieve tension, or sigh in relief. It's not at all easy to see why any of these (purely mechanical) processes need the body to be a sentient agent with actual experience of qualia. Why evolve such a wondrous property when in theory a "dead" mechanical system should perform all the same functions?

It is for this reason that I believe consciousness is not evolved, but rather is intrinsic to the framework of the universe. If the universe has always existed, I would therefore expect mind always to have existed-- which eternal mind might be sensibled coined "god." If the universe was created, then because its framework has the capacity for experience, the seed for that capacity must have been there at the beginning-- which basically represents the X-tian view of creation.