Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.

In article <1157883314.617697.242360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ymir wrote:
In article <1157876963.068996.74790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ymir wrote:
In article <1157833307.520977.87110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ymir wrote:
In article <1157798159.402553.278330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Between which two? I couldn't understand either of the options
above
since I don't yet understand what you mean by 'coincidence' or
'translation'.


By coincidence I mean that there is no evolutionary advantage and
therefore reason for our conscious experience to make sense (the
world
is presented such a way in that choices could be based on it).
This
has
been explained above, and again and again and again during our
discussions, and in your previous post you seemed to raise no
objections to the concept of 'zombies'.

There is no coincidence involved. Our experience is part of what
allows
us to act sensibly in response to the environment, so to claim it
has
no
evolutionary advantage is absurd.

I did raise an objection to the concept of zombies -- I suggested
that
one could not create an entity with the same range of responses to
the
environment which lacked the sort of awareness that we have. That
awareness has, at its root, a purely physical basis.

By translation, I mean presumably you conscious experience would
have
to be what it is like to experience an energy of some type, that
spans
the brain, and is effected simultaneously by various changes in
neural
state (else how are the states of the various neurons
known/experienced
simultaneously). Also there would need to be found to be
differences
between the neural sets which govern our various senses, so that
the
natural experience of them could be differentiated into senses.
There
would also be questions to why we don't get a visual of the
neurons
for
example which correlates to the outside world, instead of what we
do
experience which is a visual without the slightest hint of a
neuron.

I do not understand this paragraph at all.

You said:
"There is no coincidence involved. Our experience is part of what
allows us to act sensibly in response to the environment, so to
claim
it has no evolutionary advantage is absurd."

How does the experience of chemistry effect the biochemistry, and
therefore how the organism behaves?

What do you mean bu 'the experience of chemistry'. Chemistry is a
branch
of science. It isn't the right type of thing to have experiences.


Is the experience consciousness of caused by something within the
physical world (the type of thing governed by the rules of physics and
chemistry)?

Yes. I have said that repeatedly. The experience of consciousness
results from neurological processes in the brain and senses, which are
the result of the nervous system's biochemistry, all of which operates
in accordance with the laws of physics.

André


Hi André,

I understand your position, and I'll tell you mine:

We are presented with the physical world based upon our neural state.
The physical world is not the source of the presentation. The reason we
are presented with a physical world with unbiased (towards Good or
Evil) rules is that the reason for the presentation is that it is a
game between God and the Devil about which it is better to be,
selfless, or selfish. Things within the presentation follow the rules
of the presentation, but the presentation allows us to make choices, to
caste our vote if you like. Though God rewards those that follow it
with heaven.

If the physical world is not the source of our knowledge, and god
imparts some representation directly onto our brain, then why do we have
senses? Why do we go blind if we seriously damage our eyes? Couldn't god
continue to impart his presentation of the world onto our brains without
requiring photons to strike our retinas? Why does he limit his visual
presentation to those things which are detectable within the fairly
limited band of the EM spectrum that our retinas are sensitive to?

André

--
use rot thirteen to email
ntvfnnx (at) tznvy.pbz

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Ymir wrote: ... By coincidence I mean that there is no evolutionary advantage and ... results from neurological processes in the brain and senses, ... in accordance with the laws of physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Ymir wrote: ... By coincidence I mean that there is no evolutionary advantage and ... What do you mean bu 'the experience of chemistry'. ... in accordance with the laws of physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Ymir wrote: ... By coincidence I mean that there is no evolutionary advantage and ... What do you mean bu 'the experience of chemistry'. ... in accordance with the laws of physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Newsflash Extra Extra Proof Of Gods Existence
    ... existence of God, an argument that predated my studies in Sociology. ... permitted and discovered in God’s freedom to not be, a diversity that, ... consciousness, freedom expands. ... macro world to the physics of the micro world produces some revealing ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Newsflash Extra Extra Proof Of Gods Existence
    ... existence of God, an argument that predated my studies in Sociology. ... permitted and discovered in God’s freedom to not be, a diversity that, ... consciousness, freedom expands. ... macro world to the physics of the micro world produces some revealing ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)