RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 4:20 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm by Mystic.)
(October 28, 2012 at 4:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How is anyone supposed to determine how wide the gap is when you refuse to suggest where we might look?
I'm going to be doing a lot of reading into this subject as well as discussions with scientists hopefully via email. (blog sites for example). I will get back to you after I have more explanation.
As I said, it's a semi argument from ignorance. The truth is I don't know what even makes consciousness, or even if material atoms working together can give rise to consciousness. But it seems to be the case of assumption from naturalism, that there a significant gap between concsiousness and non-concsiousness in complexity/design, to the extent mutations of one generation of a entity to another cannot account for it.
This seems to be the case to me. It may not be true. But I don't think it's a weak argument or weak reasoning.
In this case, try as I might, I cannot convince myself this reasoning is wrong, and it seems true.
