Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Oh my fucking god. I was trying to argue with someone who rejects gravity. 

Maybe he learned basic physics by watching roadrunner cartoons.

Boru

[Jal]

Im done with you. You are too dense, and too dishonest.

Unity in multiplicity, baby. That's the biblical view.  When Jesus asked a demon his name:

- First he replied, "My name is Legion".    My name? Meaning one person? In fact the passage refers to it as an "unclean spirit" (singular)
- Then he continued: "For we are many."

That's the paradox of the Trinity. Don't rely on the scholars for this kind of information. All you'll get is a bunch of nonsense and contradictions.

[Jal]

Then Jesus cast this "unclean spirit" into multiple swine. That's multiple physical parts, which had earlier formed a unity.

[Jal]

Oh my fucking god. I was trying to argue with someone who rejects gravity. 

Maybe he learned basic physics by watching roadrunner cartoons.

Boru

Primarily we disagree on the underlying cause of so-called "gravity", not on the nature of its effects.

[Deesse23]

Oh my fucking god. I was trying to argue with someone who rejects gravity. 

Maybe he learned basic physics by watching roadrunner cartoons.

Boru

How are idiots like this able to tie their shoes in the morning?
What kinda jobs do morons like this have?
How the fuck do family meetings, birthdays, x-mas pan out with ignoramuses like that at the table?
How is it possible to be that uninformed at all?

[Nay_Sayer]

It's mass. As in the large mass of the planet you're standing on. Hope that helps.

[Jal]

Maybe he learned basic physics by watching roadrunner cartoons.

Boru

How are idiots like this able to tie their shoes in the morning?
What kinda jobs do morons like this have?
How the fuck do family meetings, birthdays, x-mas pan out with ignoramuses like that at the table?
How is it possible to be that uninformed at all?

Whatever guy. I sure hope your facade isn't fooling anyone.

[Fake Messiah]

Primarily we disagree on the underlying cause of so-called "gravity", not on the nature of its effects.

Does this mean you are also a flat-earther?

[Jal]

"For someone who argues that there are degrees of sentience, this is a particularly daft objection.  Consciousness evolved by degrees.  Same as is required by your argument." That's somewhat like conflating abiogenesis and evolutoin, claiming they are the exact same thing. Emergent consciousness is claim vastly less probable than the claim that consciousness was already present but matured in degrees. 

On what basis do you conclude it is less probable?   We know that mind comes in varying expressions among animals.  We don't know that there is an expression of it in rocks, for which there is no evidence.  That's an asymmetry you need to answer with something other than assuming pansychism.

"You are arguing that things like hunger, libido, and such are epiphenomenal. " That's precisely the opposite of my claim. I regard them as innate, albeit initially in negligible degrees of acuteness. 

  
Innate isn't opposed to epiphenomenal.  Try learning what words actually mean.

"To argue that such a terminus is unreasonable with regard to basic forces such as gravity, but not with respect to your own brute facts is to engage in a double standard." I am not convinced it's a double standard. LOGICALLY and EMPIRICALLY, I cannot pull your body from a distance. I must reach out and touch you. Gravity contradicts what we seem to know. yet it is easily explained by a physical God whose hand is doing precisely that - reaching out and touching matter.

Gravity doesn't present any obvious contradiction any more than sentient rocks presents a contradiction to what we know.  The charge of a double standard remains unanswered.

"Innate isn't opposed to epiphenomenal.  Try learning what words actually mean."  Don't exaggerate.  I don't think my usage of the term was exponentially skewed. Quick google:
 
"Most epiphenomenalists have been physicalists or property dualists who think consciousness arises when matter is organized in certain complex ways, such as in brains. On this view:

• Electrons are not conscious.
  
• Rocks are not conscious.
  
• Conscious experience emerges from complex neural activity.
  

"Emergent consciousness" is, in my understanding, antithetical to innate consciousness.  In my view, for example, electrons ARE conscious.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Maybe he learned basic physics by watching roadrunner cartoons.

Boru

Primarily we disagree on the underlying cause of so-called "gravity", not on the nature of its effects.

This isn’t one of those agree-to-disagree moments. You’re simply wrong.



If you don’t accept the underlying nature of gravity, then you don’t accept the concept of mass. If you don’t accept the concept of mass, you’re a hopelessly stupid person.

Boru