Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.


someone2 wrote:
Max wrote:
someone5 wrote:


If the physical world was in fact the origin of our experience of it,
then it would have to be a coincidental deception, assuming such a
coincidence is even possible. For example our visual experience would
have to be a natural translation of brain state, no translation layer
could have evolved, as experiencing the world in a way that makes sense
would not be required.

False. It is required.


There is not a single reason that the organism would have evolved an
experience that made sense. All evolutionary advantages would be
advantageous purely in terms of functionality (not what the experience
of that function was).

Incorrect. Functional interpretation of data IS experience. To say it
is required is a statement of faith, an assumption.

So Max, did you understand that the original post was about our current
scientific understanding. Our current scientific understanding is that:

1) Intracell activity (activity within the cells) can be explained in
terms of our current understanding of physics and chemistry.

2) Emergent cell behaviours, such as the kidney or liver, can be
explained in terms of the intracell activity of the cells that make
them up, and intercell activity (activity between the cells). Both
intracell and intercell activity can be explained in terms of our
current understanding of physics and chemistry.

3) Emergent cell behaviours, such as the brain, can be explained in
terms of the intracell activity, and intercell activity (activity
between the cells), of the cells that makes it up. Both intracell and
intercell activity can be explained in terms of our current
understanding of physics and chemistry.

You seem to disagree with one of them but which one that is I am not
sure.

Nothing I have written disagrees with anything in the 3 above
assumptions you list . It is you who disagrees w. the above notions.
And it is clear you do so not on available evidence but on faith.

Though the original post is a proof given our current scientific
understanding, though if you want to tell me your theory then go ahead,
though it might be useful if you say whether you accept the original
post a proof beyond reasonable doubt given our current scientific
understanding, or whether you see an error in the reasoning.

I have already pointed out the errors in your reasoning, as have many
others. You have either ignored what I had to say or completely missed
the point and simply repeated your false assumptions.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Our current scientific understanding is that: ... terms of our current understanding of physics and chemistry. ... explained in terms of the intracell activity of the cells that make ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... current scientific understanding. ... and intercell activity (activity between the cells). ... terms of the intracell activity, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Brilliance of Our Teachers
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... matter would be straightforward by now, the understanding of modern physics ... made Physics into the only Science where MECHANISM is not considered. ... overlooking the fact that nothing is known until observation, mathematics ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Brilliance of Our Teachers
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... matter would be straightforward by now, the understanding of modern physics ... made Physics into the only Science where MECHANISM is not considered. ... overlooking the fact that nothing is known until observation, mathematics ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Brilliance of Our Teachers
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... matter would be straightforward by now, the understanding of modern physics ... made Physics into the only Science where MECHANISM is not considered. ... overlooking the fact that nothing is known until observation, mathematics ...
    (sci.physics.particle)