Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

Name one quality, trait, or property that a rock has which makes it eligible to be labeled sentient.  If you can't, your implied claim that you are using the word the same with a rock as with a human is hollow.

A rock has all the qualities of a sentient human being but too negligibly/ primordially to realize it. Just like a plant. The same potentiality is there and can be realized. If a rock is an unclear example, maybe a sandwich is a better example.  A sandwich SEEMS non-sentient but when I eat it, and it becomes part of my brain matter, it's potentality for sentience is suddenly realized.

Not sure why you think I have a logical problem here. Just because you disbelieve in degrees of sentience doesn't make you correct and me wrong.

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

[Ravenshire]

A rock has all the qualities of a sentient human being but too negligibly/ primordially to realize it. Just like a plant. The same potentiality is there and can be realized. If a rock is an unclear example, maybe a sandwich is a better example.  A sandwich SEEMS non-sentient but when I eat it, and it becomes part of my brain matter, it's potentality for sentience is suddenly realized.

Not sure why you think I have a logical problem here. Just because you disbelieve in degrees of sentience doesn't make you correct and me wrong.

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

I doubt he can.

[Jal]

That's not true. If you saw settings hardcoded there, you could easily advise to use configuration files for example. Or if you saw the same method duplicated 50 times, you could easily advise to consolidate it to a static method. Don't tell me it's not even "remotely possible" to offer advice on C#.  Now it might TURN OUT that your suggestions were misguided, but don't tell me it's TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to offer useful advice.  The only reason you're making this ridiculous assertion is to have an excuse to ignore my arguments, viz, "You're not a PHD in science so I can ignore anything you have to say."  It's a copout.

No, I'm just not asinine and self-righteous enough to speak up when I know I have insufficient knowledge to do so. You have insufficient knowledge. Make of that what you will.

You're not? But you have described my philosophical assertions as incoherent and unreaonsable, right? Do you have a doctorate in philosophy? Or are you just being, to use your own words, "asinine and self-righteousness enough to speak  up when I know I have insufficient knowledge to do so." ????  Here again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yahweh lets it look like our agency is impotent.  Yahweh lets it look like the rocks aren't sentient.  Because brides. This is crazy shit.  My guy, it would be crazy shit even if it were true.  Especially if it were true.

Huh? Impotent? How am I impotent in agency, given that I could kill someone.  Not getting your point.

Could you...though?  What kind of someone?  Some who wasn't looking, someone who wasn't expecting, someone smaller..? I guess you could try? Point is, you think it's agency even if it wont actually work. If your belief that you could kill someone is, in fact, irrelevant to whether or not you actually could pull it off. How is this different from the experience of hunger not directly mapping to survival outcomes?

[Ravenshire]

No, I'm just not asinine and self-righteous enough to speak up when I know I have insufficient knowledge to do so. You have insufficient knowledge. Make of that what you will.

You're not? But you have described my philosophical assertions as incoherent and unreaonsable, right? Do you have a doctorate in philosophy? Or are you just being, to use your own words, "asinine and self-righteousness enough to speak  up when I know I have insufficient knowledge to do so." ????  Here again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I've said nothing about your philosophy. I've called out your ignorance of the sciences. Not that I expect you to understand the difference at this point.

[Jal]

A rock has all the qualities of a sentient human being but too negligibly/ primordially to realize it. Just like a plant. The same potentiality is there and can be realized. If a rock is an unclear example, maybe a sandwich is a better example.  A sandwich SEEMS non-sentient but when I eat it, and it becomes part of my brain matter, it's potentality for sentience is suddenly realized.

Not sure why you think I have a logical problem here. Just because you disbelieve in degrees of sentience doesn't make you correct and me wrong.

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

Panpsychism is a reasonable metaphysical apriori/ axiom understood to resolve the unreasonable assumption of emergent consciousness.  I don't have to prove it, I only need to recognize that the alternative is implausible/ unreasonable. 

As an analogy, I don't need to prove Euclid's fifth postulate to adopt that axiom. I simply need to recognize that the alternative is implausible/ unreasonable.

Obviously we can be wrong in our axioms. That's why we should all take our own views as tentative. But you haven't demonstrated the notion of a primoridally conscious rock to be illogical.

[Jal]

You're not? But you have described my philosophical assertions as incoherent and unreaonsable, right? Do you have a doctorate in philosophy? Or are you just being, to use your own words, "asinine and self-righteousness enough to speak  up when I know I have insufficient knowledge to do so." ????  Here again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I've said nothing about your philosophy. I've called out your ignorance of the sciences. Not that I expect you to understand the difference at this point.

I beg to differ. My philosohpy is the hermeneutic for my views on science. To reject my views on science is already a critique of my philosophy. You can't separate the two, in terms of your effort to impugn my OP.  In that post, those two disciplines are inextricably intertwined.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, there's your trouble. Panpsychism is -a- wordview. Not a -reasonable- worldview. You know what I'm talking about. The kind of worldview that...while it may be true, needs convoluted explanations for why it seems false.

[Jal]

Huh? Impotent? How am I impotent in agency, given that I could kill someone.  Not getting your point.

Could you...though?  What kind of someone?  Some who wasn't looking, someone who wasn't expecting, someone smaller..?  I guess you could try?  Point is, you think it's agency even if it wont actually work.  If your belief that you could kill someone is, in fact, irrelevant to whether or not you actually could pull it off.   How is this different from the experience of hunger not directly mapping to survival outcomes?

Among mammals we see a high level of consistency: typically a hungry  mammal will lunge toward perceived food, and a thirsty mamamal will typically lunge toward perceived fluids.

This is simply not a plausible pattern on the assumption of blind, random domino-causilty oblivious to hunger and thirst.  A bit more explanation is required here. Natural Selection, on its own, is an insufficient explanation of the present order.

[Ravenshire]

I've said nothing about your philosophy. I've called out your ignorance of the sciences. Not that I expect you to understand the difference at this point.

I beg to differ. My philosohpy is the hermeneutic for my views on science. To reject my views on science is already a critique of my philosophy. You can't separate the two, in terms of your effort to impugn my OP.  In that post, those two disciplines are inextricably intertwined.

So, you're philosophy is based on an ignorance of science (first time I've actually addressed it). Is that better? It still doesn't change the fact that if you don't understand the science, you simply can't speak intelligibly about it. Foundations built upon sand, and all that. If you wan't to remain ignorant of the rock that will give you a good foundation, that's entirely on you.