Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

I literally guffawed on that one.  Almost fell out of my chair. Give me a moment to recover my composure, and then maybe I'll respond.

That's because you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect: you are dumb as shit but full of yourself.

Matter is inherently conscious, but consciousness evolves in the sense of maturing. These are not mutually exclusive.

Regardless of whether consciousness is basic or matured, the argument's premise about natural selection still fails. Natural selection relies on physical cause-and-effect sequences—where physical inputs (like low blood sugar) reliably trigger physical outputs (seeking food). Adding a layer of "maturing consciousness" is functionally irrelevant to whether physical natural selection operates in a deterministic system.

I am educating people to the fact that free will doesn't make much sense unless it is defined as a force that moves matter. SOMETHING must be self-moving in principle, to get the ball rolling. If choice A is: a piece of matter moves by free will, what is choice B? Randomness? Chaotic movement, that is, a RANDOM self-movement? Choice A aligns better with our empirical experience, because reality isn't pure random chaos, it has a degree of stability to it (viz the law of inertia), a stability that is primarily interrupted when we exert free will to move our bodies in ways  unpredictable to an observer (viz he saw me moving left but was not able to predict, mathematically, at what moment I would shift direction).

Again, you are using flawed physics, category errors, and a false dichotomy.

Choice B isn't "random chaos." Non-conscious matter moves via deterministic natural laws (like gravity), which are neither random nor driven by conscious choice.

You are also confusing complexity with free will. An observer's inability to predict your next step is a result of system complexity, not proof of free will. Weather patterns and turbulence are equally unpredictable to an observer, but they aren't conscious.

And so on.

I freely admit that some processes (for example if I line up some dominos) are highly deterministic when free agents don't interfere.

But such a domino effect doesn't make for a first motion/ first mover that gets the ball rolling. And as I mentioned earlier, please don't speak to me about an "immaterial force" known as gravity, as even Newton didn't accept that kind of immaterial nonsense. 

SOMETHING must be self-moving (something got the ball rolling), which leaves us with either (A) self-movement  by free will or (B) random chaotic movement unexplained/ unpredictable.  Clearly choice A is the more rational choice and aligns better with human experience.