Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

why don't you think pain could have come through natural selection?

Um, that's exactly it; your body needs to know what pain is, or else it will be unable to avoid it. If you lacked the ability to feel extreme heat, you might set your hand on a hot object and be badly burnt... seems obvious.

Originally posted by inimalist
why don't you think pain could have come through natural selection?

Explain how.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, that's exactly it; your body needs to know what pain is, or else it will be unable to avoid it. If you lacked the ability to feel extreme heat, you might set your hand on a hot object and be badly burnt... seems obvious.

That is a non-explanation. You are just saying it must have occurred. Explain how it evolves from a non-conscious process into a conscious one.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
That is a non-explanation. You are just saying it must have occurred. Explain how it evolves from a non-conscious process into a conscious one.
It is a non-conscious process.

Let me explain ....

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, that's exactly it; your body needs to know what pain is, or else it will be unable to avoid it.

Goal setting, not allowed in materialist version of natural selection.



Why does a non-conscious machine with no sensation care about being burned? If it does, consciousness is in-built into nature.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It is a non-conscious process.

There is no such thing as a non-conscious pain. How can a non-conscious process evolve to conscious pain?

Would any other materialists and atheists like to (fail) to explain how it can evolve?

this is nonsensical

Originally posted by inimalist
this is nonsensical

That means you will have no problem explaining how.

Looking forward to your reply, (not) explaining how it can occur.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
There is no such thing as a non-conscious pain. How can a non-conscious process evolve to conscious pain?

Would any other materialists and atheists like to (fail) to explain how it can evolve?


pain is not conscious. that's like saying breathing is a "conscious" action, just because you can tell it is happening. when actually, it is regulated by the brain-stem and has nothing to do with the conscious mind.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
Why does a non-conscious machine with no sensation care about being burned? If it does, consciousness is in-built into nature.
Do you really not see how something that kills itself through burning, is not evolutionarily favorable? The ability to avoid damage is necessary to pass genes on.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
That means you will have no problem explaining how.

Looking forward to your reply, (not) explaining how it can occur.



I'll prove pain can evolve when you prove there is something called consciousness

Originally posted by King Kandy
pain is not conscious.

So you do not feel pain? That is an extraordinary claim, have you ever felt a pain?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you really not see how something that kills itself through burning, is not evolutionarily favorable?

The pre-conscious lifeform cannot care, it feels nothing and has no goal to survive.


You are talking as if there was a designer. It is not 'necessary' ...evolution is blind, it doesn't care.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll prove pain can evolve when you prove there is something called consciousness

So you are not conscious too? Are you another person who is not conscious of pain? Extraordinary.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
So you are not conscious too? Are you another person who is not conscious of pain? Extraordinary.


interesting you would hand wave away such a fundamentally important question.

If consciousness is an emergent biproduct of the complex firing of our brains, then there is no problem of something non-sentient becoming sentient, because sentience is an anthropic line that represents the complexity of our neuronal sophistication, not something different in kind from so called "non-sentient" creatures.

So, for there to be this thing called "consciousness" to become aware of pain, or the problem with the conscious perception of pain, you have to prove there is some thing that fundamentally is consciousness. If you can't tell us what consciousness is, how can we ever tell you how pain becomes conscious? there is no goal-post to meet.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
The pre-conscious lifeform cannot care, it feels nothing and has no goal to survive.
And yet we see unconscious microbes taking action to survive, all the time.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
You are talking as if there was a designer. It is not 'necessary' ...evolution is blind, it doesn't care.
what is your definition of "evolution"?

Originally posted by Parapsychology
So you do not feel pain? That is an extraordinary claim, have you ever felt a pain?
Already explained this one. keep up with the times sir.

Originally posted by inimalist
i
If consciousness is an emergent biproduct of the complex firing of our brains, then there is no problem of something non-sentient becoming sentient

You have faith there is 'no problem' .... neurscientist call consciousness the 'hard problem'


How do you know? The argument here seems to be here that it magically pops out of greatly evolved blind complexity. That is a belief, not an explanation of how.

How do you programme a computer to feel a pain? No one has the slightest idea.


I feel pain .... if you are claiming you do not feel pain ... I do not believe you

Originally posted by Parapsychology
You have faith there is 'no problem' .... neurscientist call consciousness the 'hard problem'

right, I don't believe the hard problem represents anything other than how pervasive the illusion of consciousness is. I have yet to see any evidence that consciousness is really anything beyond neuronal firing, if you have such evidence, I would love to see it.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
How do you know? The argument here seems to be here that it magically pops out of greatly evolved blind complexity. That is a belief, not an explanation of how.

which aspect of consciousness do you think isn't explained by neuronal function?

Originally posted by King Kandy
And yet we see unconscious microbes taking action to survive, all the time.


These are either non-conscious avoiders or fundamentally conscious.

Let us assume these are non-conscious avoiders ....these are surviving well without pain, why does senationless, goaless, blind natural selection evolve to feel anything whatsoever?




According to materialism - accidents surviving better ... until consciousess emerges, only then is there a desire/goal to survive or ... no consciousness, no reason, no meaning, no pain....

Originally posted by Parapsychology
These are either non-conscious avoiders or fundamentally conscious.

Let us assume these are non-conscious avoiders ....these are surviving well without pain, why does senationless, goaless, blind natural selection evolve to feel anything whatsoever?
I don't see why it has to be those two options.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
According to materialism - accidents surviving better ... until consciousess emerges, only then is there a desire/goal to survive or a ... no consciousness, no reason, no meaning, no pain.
Oh. Well, I definitely don't believe in that explanation of life. But I do believe in evolution.

Originally posted by inimalist
right, I don't believe the hard problem represents anything other than how pervasive the illusion of consciousness is.

Next time you feel a conscious pain, remember it is an illusion


Well the brain is always active, so a materialist is going to claim whatever fMRI, EEG etc. activity occurs must have been the part producing consciousness - it is a non-falsifiable belief

The only way to test it would be somethng like a Near Death Experience but that is heading off topic.

Originally posted by Parapsychology
Next time you feel a conscious pain, remember it is an illusion

hand wave all you like, you are the one refusing to answer a simple request

Originally posted by Parapsychology
Well the brain is always active, so a materialist is going to claim whatever fMRI, EEG etc. activity occurs must have been the part producing consciousness - it is a non-falsifiable belief

ummm, not at all, much of the activity in the brain happens without conscious awareness...

you should probably stop making such assumptions of materialism, I don't think you understand the principles

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh. Well, I definitely don't believe in that explanation of life. But I do believe in evolution.

What explanation? I am not religious. I believe in natural selection ... the materialist version though doesn't explain the evolution of consciousness.

You guys do realize this is Whirly, right?

oh...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You guys do realize this is Whirly, right?

Whoever Whirly is, I am not him or her. I can assure you of that.

Any other atheist/materialist would like to (fail to) explain the steps from a non-consicious automations to a conscious sensation via natural selection?

Yeah, this guy's posts smacked pretty clearly of trollish behavior. I'll go ahead and run a check, but even if nothing shows up, I think we'd be better off waiting until a fundamental understand of evolution is displayed by the new member instead of wasting our time.

Originally posted by Digi
Yeah, this guy's posts smacked pretty clearly of trollish behavior.
I'll go ahead and run a check, but even if nothing shows up, I think we'd be better off waiting until a fundamental understand of evolution is displayed by the new member instead of wasting our time.

Accusing me of being a troll?

Instead of claiming I do not understand natural selection. Why do you just not admit 'materialists and atheists cannot explain how a sensation of pain evolved ? Is it too hard for materialists and atheists to be honest?

Sensation or pain is the most primitive requirement of the evolution of conscious minds to occur. According to the principles of materialist natural selection, it evolves from sensation or pain ... but nobody can explain it, not even Richard Dawkins comes anywhere close to explaining how non-conscious processes can become conscious. They are deluding themselves ... yes most materialists and atheists are deluding themselves if they do not admit 'materialists and atheists cannot explain how a sensation of pain evolved

I understand natural selection ... I am afraid others posting in here have faith and promises that consciousness can magically pop out of complexity .... it is bit like arguing TV sets create films because the circuit boards are complex. Correlations do not prove causation.

All those materialist/atheist artificial intelligence theorists/programmers have magical thinking. None, not a single one has clue how to make a computer feel a sensation or pain.

The two most common mistakes are : -

(1) Using terms implying conscious processes existed prior to their moment of consciousness evolving (i.e. violating their own version of natural selection)

OR

(2) Adding goal setting, a teleological process not allowed in the materialist version of natural selection which must be completely blind and goaless until consciousness emerges in creatures.

Have a go folks, when you tried to do it, you will fail.