Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Deesse23]

[quote pid='2256469' dateline='1788121751']
[quote pid='2256465' dateline='1788121121']
Consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.

So dead particles suddenly become self-aware?  And  you accuse ME of philo dribble? Really?

Please educate yourself about the term emergent. You may avoid embarrassing yourself next time. You clearly do not have the faintest idea what you are taking about

Even the term dead in your silly argument is silly since dead suggests something was alive once. You are too stupid to properly make your stupid argument. Dunning Kruger masterclass

[Belacqua]

What's unreasonable about it?  Only the alternative (self-awareness suddenly emerging from dead particles) is unreasonable/ implausible.

Have you read David Bentley Hart's book All Things are Full of Gods?

This is a strange and fascinating book about the relation of mind and matter. Oddly, it is written as a dialogue among several Greek gods, but these are gods who are fully up to date with the work of Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers and other more recent theorists on mind. 

After running through just about every known theory on the subject, the majority of the gods conclude that mind must be prior to matter. The idea that mind emerges when matter reaches a certain level of complexity turns out to have several difficulties. It's too detailed and elaborate to summarize here, but even if you disagree you come away from it much better informed. 

Hart is a Christian but he makes no arguments that are specifically Christian. His conclusions about mind being fundamental are compatible with ancient Indian thought as well, and with some modern scholars who are not with any religion.

[Fake Messiah]

Still no refutation of the OP other than, "We don't have to answer your philosophical arguments because we know more science that you."

Huh?

That's because your OP relies on several logical fallacies, scientific misunderstandings, and theological contradictions.

You are blending panpsychism (matter is inherently conscious) with materialism (matter evolves consciousness), which are mutually exclusive concepts.

You are equating human free will directly with fundamental physical forces like gravity. You also confuse determinism with randomness, falsely claiming natural selection couldn't work without free will. In reality, physical states like hunger naturally drive physical actions like eating.

You are committing special pleading: Calling God the "first piece of matter" doesn't solve the First Cause problem; it just begs the question of where that initial matter came from and why it evolved first.

You also don't know shit about Christian theology. Defining God as a material being that evolved over 13.8 billion years directly contradicts historic Christian theology, which views God as an uncreated, immaterial Spirit existing outside of space and time.

[Deesse23]

Name those qualities and your evidence that a rock possesses those qualities.

I doubt he can.

A sandwich becomes sentient when I eat it. That's what we are dealing with. And the same guy thinks everybody ELSE is ignorant.
.... And Bel confirming him by claiming everybody ELSE on this forum is narrow minded.

If you would go out on the street and show this back and forth to a passer by, they would assume this is satire.

[Jal]

[quote pid='2256469' dateline='1788121751']
[quote pid='2256465' dateline='1788121121']
Consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.

So dead particles suddenly become self-aware?  And  you accuse ME of philo dribble? Really?
[/quote]
Please educate yourself about the term emergent. You may avoid embarrassing yourself next time. You clearly do not have the faintest idea what you are taking about

Even the term dead in your silly argument is silly since dead suggests something was alive once. You are too stupid to properly make your stupid argument. Dunning Kruger masterclass
[/quote]

You are simply nitpicking my terminology for lack of cogent rebuttals.  With respect to the context of the OP, it should be clear that I am using the term "dead particles" to describe a particle defined in terms of physical properties devoid of innate sentience/self-awareness. In such a world view consciousness/ self-awareness supposedly arises/ emerges (hence the term "emergent consciousness") as an epiphenomenon of matter rearranged and recombined, typically as a byproduct of cerebral organization. Panpsychist philosophers are scholars who recognize the obvious implausibility here. A reorganization of physical properties can certainly introduce "new" (i.e. previously unobserved) physical appearance and physical behavior but is not likely to create a psychology of self-awareness. 

But I think you knew that was my point. This is another copout. You are just trying to portray me as stupid as an excuse to avoid my arguments that you cannot rebut.

[Jal]

I doubt he can.

A sandwich becomes sentient when I eat it. That's what we are dealing with. And the same guy thinks everybody ELSE is ignorant.
.... And Bel confirming him by claiming everybody ELSE on this forum is narrow minded.

If you would go out on the street and show this back and forth to a passer by, they would assume this is satire.

What are you trying to say here? That sandwiches, nay food portions in general, have never contributed any matter to your brain? Are you trying to say that matter is never sentient/ self-aware? You're not making any sense. 

Does anyone here have something more to contribute than silly, strawman "rebuttals" ?

[Jal]

Still no refutation of the OP other than, "We don't have to answer your philosophical arguments because we know more science that you."

Huh?

That's because your OP relies on several logical fallacies, scientific misunderstandings, and theological contradictions.

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.

[Jal]

Still no refutation of the OP other than, "We don't have to answer your philosophical arguments because we know more science that you."

Huh?

You are committing special pleading: Calling God the "first piece of matter" doesn't solve the First Cause problem; it just begs the question of where that initial matter came from and why it evolved first.

You also don't know shit about Christian theology. Defining God as a material being that evolved over 13.8 billion years directly contradicts historic Christian theology, which views God as an uncreated, immaterial Spirit existing outside of space and time.

"You are blending panpsychism (matter is inherently conscious) with materialism (matter evolves consciousness), which are mutually exclusive concepts."
False dichotomy.  Matter is inherently conscious, but consciousness evolves in the sense of maturing. These are not mutually exclusive.


"You are equating human free will directly with fundamental physical forces like gravity." 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).

"You also confuse determinism with randomness..." Nitpicking my terminology. By "randomnmess" i simply meant blind causality which, as such, is indifferent to hunger and thirst (etc).

"... falsely claiming natural selection couldn't work without free will.  In reality, physical states like hunger naturally drive physical actions like eating." That's like saying, if a chain of dominos is falling rightward, "Some of them will shift direction and thus go left if they feel a hunger." Blind causality is, well, blind. It couldn't care less about your hunger. Hence determinism won't suffice, to explain the natural order.

[Deesse23]

Your silly ideas were rebutted last night, over and over an over. Just sit back and look at fake messushs well done summary or angrbodas surgical dealing with your philosophy.

That's why nobody CAN engage in depth with you: There is no depth in your arguments. They are self refuting and often incongruent. There is no in depth disseimation possible of this. Of course you will be offended but it is a sad fact that you neither understand science, philosophy nor Christian theology in the slightest. There is no nice way to tell somebody that he is so comprehensively ignorant.

I repeat: you are not even wrong

All that's currently possible is to point at you and laugh, as ravenshire said.

But this is not a science or philosophy forum. You are Christian and believe your god is limited in ability and finite in age, in the face of overwhelming evidence (verses in the Bible) to the contrary. Why?

I'll make a prediction. Your arguments will be "words dont mean words" aka " the Bible means something completely different than what it actually says". And that will point to your lack of basic reading, as ravenshire pointed out too

[Deesse23]

A sandwich becomes sentient when I eat it. That's what we are dealing with. And the same guy thinks everybody ELSE is ignorant.
.... And Bel confirming him by claiming everybody ELSE on this forum is narrow minded.

If you would go out on the street and show this back and forth to a passer by, they would assume this is satire.

What are you trying to say here? That sandwiches, nay food portions in general, have never contributed any matter to your brain? Are you trying to say that matter is never sentient/ self-aware? You're not making any sense. 

Does anyone here have something more to contribute than silly, strawman "rebuttals" ?

As head been pointed out: provide evidence that sandwiches are sentient.
Can't believe I am writing this