Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Let's leave philosophy out. People make and  state claims based upon what they want to be true, not what can be demonstrated. For the person that started this thread their position is evolution must have some mystical element to account for species evolution. Others subsequently have argued as much, but have yet been able to demonstrate that.

P.S. I posted a link to a Science Friday show on the subject of how living in New York city is changing the coloration of pigeons. That post received about 0 responses.

My argument is a good one.  Try explaining it or stop being so negative about other peoples opinions!

My argument is a good one.  Try explaining it or stop being so negative about other peoples opinions!

That'll turn into a philosophical argument and will get you nowhere. So I'll pass. I like evidence that's discovered then verified over and over. In short I like facts. Ya got any?

That'll turn into a philosophical argument and will get you nowhere. So I'll pass. I like evidence that's discovered then verified over and over. In short I like facts. Ya got any?

You like facts? Brian observed that electric toasters aren’t sentient. That seems factual to me, unless you’d like to challenge that statement. 

It doesn’t seem an unreasonable question to wonder how consciousness could reduce to pure, as-we-currently-understand-it matter when you take an object that fits that description, like an electric toaster, and see that it does not have the same qualities as a human being.

Your ignorant and immature dismissal of philosophy that you don’t understand aside, there were no philosophical arguments made by Brian. He said a toaster is made of the same matter we are but isn’t conscious. Why?

You like facts? Brian observed that electric toasters aren’t sentient. That seems factual to me, unless you’d like to challenge that statement. 

It doesn’t seem an unreasonable question to wonder how consciousness could reduce to pure, as-we-currently-understand-it matter when you take an object that fits that description, like an electric toaster, and see that it does not have the same qualities as a human being.

Your ignorant and immature dismissal of philosophy that you don’t understand aside, there were no philosophical arguments made by Brian. He said a toaster is made of the same matter we are but isn’t conscious. Why?

Brian's response was not appropriate to my question and you don't answer a question with a question. 
I never implied it was unreasonable. May you or Brian start a toaster thread.
And we aren't in this thread discussing consciousness. This is a thread on evolution with the intent realized or not to undermine and inject mystical reason why it can't happen by purely physical means.

Yes, let's put purile insults aside.

Otherwise an electric toaster is also conscious!  Think of the difference between how a machine doesn't experience anything whereas a sentient being does.

Are you saying that if subjective experience can be reduced to matter and energy, then everything must be conscious? If so, do you have a proof of this assertion? Your second sentence is just another assertion.

If photosynthesis can be reduced to matter and energy, then everything must photosynthesize.

~~ Paul

Are you saying that if subjective experience can be reduced to matter and energy, then everything must be conscious? If so, do you have a proof of this assertion? Your second sentence is just another assertion.

If photosynthesis can be reduced to matter and energy, then everything must photosynthesize.

~~ Paul

Are you saying that you have proof of your position?

Are you saying that you have proof of your position?

I must point out again one does not debate an opponents position by asking a question. Doing such indicates mere bluster.

[Laird]

As has been pointed out so many times, the elements of subjective experience simply can't be reduced to matter and energy and their interactions.

How does anyone know this as factual?

By virtue of the meanings of the words involved, just as we know that the statement that "the elements of sound simply can't be reduced to colours and shades and their interactions" is true in virtue of what we mean by "colour", "sound" and "reduced". Whilst some people experience chromesthesia, we understand this as an association between sound and colour rather than as a reduction of the one to the other - again, in virtue of the meanings of those same words. For sounds to really be reducible to colours we would have to revise the definitions of those words - just as, whilst we recognise an association between the two, we would have to revise the definitions of the terms for "subjective experience" to really be "reducible" to "matter and energy".

By virtue of the meanings of the words involved, just as we know that the statement that "the elements of sound simply can't be reduced to colours and shades and their interactions" is true in virtue of what we mean by "colour", "sound" and "reduced". Whilst some people experience chromesthesia, we understand this as an association between sound and colour rather than as a reduction of the one to the other - again, in virtue of the meanings of those same words. For sounds to really be reducible to colours we would have to revise the definitions of those words - just as, whilst we recognise an association between the two, we would have to revise the definitions of the terms for "subjective experience" to really be "reducible" to "matter and energy".

In your own words. What point are you making?

[Laird]

In your own words. What point are you making?

Hmm? I was answering your question. If you didn't understand my answer, then maybe you could explain what you're finding confusing about it?