Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

Hume gave the relevant criteria for an analogy in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.  In as much as the analogy resembles that which it is considered analogous to, the analogy has force.  Insofar as the analogized is removed in likeness from the analogy, the analogy enjoys less force, to the point that if the analogized is completely unlike, the analogy has no force.  There are many ways the mysteries of the universe are unlike your bank vault example, but it is sufficient to point to two.  Emptied bank vaults are repeatable events and thus can be informed by experience.  Not so the mysteries of the universe, as things like quantum physics, relativity, and genetic drift present real phenomenon for which experience is not a satisfactory guide.  The second is that in examining the bank analogy we are examining what is probable.  If your answer to the mysteries of the universe is simply that you find it probable that determinism and evolution are untrue, then you are making a different argument than the one you have made that panpsychism is necessarily true.  In the case of a bank vault, we have prior probabilities and background knowledge.  In the case of the mysteries of the universe, we are lacking these things.   Insofar as you are making an argument about probability, aka an argument to the most likely hypothesis, the consensus opinion is that things such as evolution, quantum mechanics, determinism, and Einstein's relativity are far more probable than an merely asserted axiom of universal consciousness.  As probably true, I'm perfectly in my rights to examine your evidence and your judgment.  As far as evidence, you basically have none.  You have a lot of philosophical flim-flam and rhetoric.  As to judgment, you dismiss Einstein because you don't understand his work.  That's piss poor judgment.  Until you show your work as to why your incredulity should be relied upon, I'm wholly justified in dismissing the incredulity of some internet rando who can't even manage the simple concept of curved spacetime.

You find the bank vault scenario clear and repeatable. To some extent that is part of my point.  I see a watch, I postulate a watchmaker as the most probable source. Why so? Clear and easily repeatable.  I myself am probably clay in the hands of a Potter. Why so? Because such a scenario is clear and easily repeatable (unless you've never heard of clay nor potters). Not quite so much with abiogenesis and evolution.  In terms of probability, then, I'm more inclined to posit the Watchmaker/Potter than evolution, especially since I myself, like Newton, cannot conceive a  solid domino-basis for "forces" like gravity. 

You miss the point. As the Humean argument goes, the more like an analogy the greater the force. The less similar, the less force. You were defending incredulity as your guide and it was shown that the analogy supporting your defense is unlike the analogized. As an analogy in defense of argument from incredulity about these subjects it fails. Instead of addressing that incredulity still has no legitimate defense, you simply change the subject toward another area where, without adequate justification, you use incredulity as a guide. Hume himself pointed out how the watchmaker analogy is faulty, that you would defend it in this context, given that the relevant counter-argument has been clearly suggested by Hume's analysis, suggests you are rather dense and immune to reason.

"Some internet rando who can't even manage the simple concept of curved spacetime."  Except there is nothing simple about curved space. If it sounds like gibberish, it quite often is such.  You can try to tell me that you "comprehend" curved space, but I simply don't believe you do, just like I don't believe the theologian who claims to comprehend the notion of immaterial spirit. Probably you've believed in curved space for so long, you've become so entirely indoctrinated into it, that you really have convinced yourself that you comprehend. I'm confident you don't.

I don't "believe in" curved spacetime. I simply don't find the concept incoherent as you do. It's not a question of whether I can make sense of Einstein's equations but rather whether there is anything immediately contradictory about the concept of spacetime. My training is in mathematics, so imagining difficult geometric concepts is something I have a strength regarding. That you cannot imagine the concept of curved spacetime, despite the standard 2D explainer being readily available and well known simply again suggests that you are somewhat dense.

"If your answer to the mysteries of the universe is simply that you find it probable that determinism and evolution are untrue, then you are making a different argument than the one you have made that panpsychism is necessarily true." I think it's fine to adduce multiple varied arguments in support of a conclusion. Yes one of my arguments is that reductionism seems to be an improbable springboard for the species.

And the answer to that is that nothing follows from your incredulity unless it is informed by sound justification for your doubts. Your little digression about the evolution of sex shows that not only do you present defective reasons for your incredulity (coevolution is a simple response), it shows that you are likely infected with a lot of dumb creationist and natural theology arguments which suggests greater scrutiny for the reasons you provide, not less. You are a cloistered idiot who cannot simply accept the fact that he has departed into heretical ideas because the Christian bible on its face is a bunch of impossible to reconcile bollocks. Hesitant to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you kept the bathwater and formed an ersatz baby from a bunch of other religiously embraced but largely rejected notions. Like a drunk in the night, you seem to have issues simply leaving the lamp post behind.