Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.


Jon G wrote:
I really want to understand this. You have posted it all over
google-groups and no-one understood it. I will assume you have a point
to make and are not just trying to confuse us all as I said before. So
lI'll write it how I read it, clearly and simply, so that you can solve
this yourself.

someone5 should have written:

A couple of things I would clarify as an introduction:

I) the theory of evolution deals with life
where life = assembled chemicals
that are separated from the environment by a membrane,
that reproduce
that, independently or via a host, consume a foodsource to produce
energy
that independently or via a host produces waste
and that responds to stimuli
can only applied to that (organisms, also known as life). A property of
life is to strive to reproduce and remain alive.

Agreeing to this definition of life (and its properties), the
argument cannot be challenged

II) Experience=the act or process of directly perceiving events or
reality, with the experience being NOT the event or the reality that
caused it
This definition may be challenged, but is NECESSARY TO HAVE ONE
TO CONTINUE

III) there is no reported case of an energy that experiences events.
References are needed to challenge this statement

IV) Anything that perceives is, at least, alive
This can be challenged in theory

1) Assuming there is a energy source that is alive, we shall call that an organism

2) Assuming the outcome of studying that organism is NOT affected by the organism's experience of being measured

example: measuring the length of length of a microbe (?)

If

(A) an organism's length-measurement can be taken accurately without
considering its experience of being measured

And if

(B) any trait (of any species of organism) that is of any organism,
must or must have been an advantage to that species during its
evolution or it would not be of that species

Then (you CONCLUDE):

(C) the length-measurement event that is experienced by the organism is
not the source of the experience because the experience is NOT the
event itself (see II) (????we have problems with this, don't you?)

and you also CONCLUDE that

(D) The organism's experience of being measured is unnecessary to that
species because the measurement is still accurate without its
experience of being measured (see A) (??? we have problems with this
too)

Hence (?), you say:

(E) The ability to experience cannot have evolved becasue it is
unnecessary to length measurements

(D) As humans have experiences, and they cannot have evolved, it is
evidence of God's existance (???where was God in your assumptions, why
doesn't it appear? We have problems with everything here)

If you disagree with my definitions, please understand I just came up
with them now, but this is what I think of, reading your words. Please
change the definitions, assumptions, logical connections I filled in
for you until you are satisfied but KEEP THE SAME FORMAT so we can all
follow the reasoning.

I really hope I understand your point. I am assuming you can see that
the above logical chain makes no sense as is.

If you think it makes sense as it is, you will excuse me from wasting
any more time.

I agree the chain of reasoning you put forward, was long, and doesn't
follow, also it does seem wrong to attribute conclusions to me, in a
line of reasoning I have never heard before. Though it isn't
surprising, as by your own admission (your opening words), you don't
understand what I am saying.

It's a shame, as it seems you went to a lot of work there. Assuming you
were being honest when you said you really wanted to understand, might
I suggest it may be simpler to just answer the question, and therefore
continue following the reasoning through knowing that you understood
each step.

Given you've agreed with (1).
1) If the organism follows the laws of physics as you so clearly
state,
then presumably it can be explained by physics.

"You can definately presume this, yes (given we have decided that
physics includes all the known sciences). Everything about it,
including statistical improbable things and chaotic responses. All of
it."

But you disagreed with (2).
2) Given physics doesn't reference 'consciousness', the organism's
behaviour must be explainable without reference to its 'consciousness'.


and that I explained to you with regards to (2)

2ex_i) Physics doesn't refer to 'consciousness' in its explanations. So
it would seem that in accepting (1) you must also accept (2).

It would be really helpful if you could concentrate on answering the
following question, as there are 5 points to get through, and you have
only understood point (1) so far.

Here goes:

Are you able to follow the reasoning in (2ex_i), or do you have a
disagreement with it, i.e. you claim that physics does reference
consciousness?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Has the speed of light emitted by a fast moving particle been measured ?
    ... | Does that stop you from measuring, for example, your average speed ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ... that the velocity of light in our theory plays the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
    ... A iFoR is a coordinate system for measuring space and time .. ... but without one you don't really have much physics to talk about. ... Just like an observer in a train sees a ball being thrown directly ... perception of reality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Fine structure constant
    ... The form of the formula relating the fine structure constant ... to the electron charge depends on the unit system used. ... If you were to set up an experiment measuring eps_0 ... Physics should aim for the simplest possible description. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: A mechanical way to obtain source independence re SOL
    ... > together with a golf cart. ... > measuring the speed of the mouse as it goes over a 10 ft ... From the standpoint of theoretical physics, ... determined, that's source independent. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I Think
    ... think, have reasoning skills, and have a sense of self ... doesn't really matter for brain function. ... physics and chemistry at work. ... required for any physical act or behavior in our physical universe. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading