Proof that consciousness evolved from physical matter?

yes , of course

OK.
Good luck with that.

Let us know what u find out.





David

well so far this non-material consciousness does not exist

Really ???????

HOW do u know this ??





David






[/quote]

because there is no evidence , to the otherwise

So, u r committed to the notion
that absence of evidence IS
evidence of absence; yes ?

yes

because why not show your self ?

Many things are clear as day, and people still can't see them...

yet , where is the evidence ?

a non-physical enity has not made their evidence , again why ?

Can you prove that you are a physical entity anywhere but in the perception of others like you?

what do mean ?

Physicality is an attribute percieved by humans. We do not know if this distinction is meaningful anywhere else.

what anywhere else ?

Our friend North reminds me of the aprochryphal story about the old lady who was asked why she believed "the earth was supported on the back of a giant turtle". When asked "what was the turtle standing on " she answered "a bigger turtle", and when asked what it was standing on, she answered "you can't fool me . It"s turtles all the way down !"

North has not worked out that "physicality" is his turtle.

I've noticed. The "logic" behind it seems to be "how else could it be".

I think that there is no question that consciousness evolved from physical matter. The evidence is in the fossil record and in our own experience of our bodies and consciousness. The question rather is what does it mean to say that consciousness evolved from physical matter and, in some ways more importantly, what does it NOT mean.

The conceptualization of evolution comes from the association of consciousness with material neurological structures which are an aspect of the material objective world which in turn is an aspect of the particular objectivity that is observed. The notion of material causality is also a fact that is based on an empirically verified objective theory.

However, usually material causality is equivocated with causality ex nihilo and the evolution of consciousness from physical matter becomes no longer an empirical fact (for which there is a lot of evidence) but rather the physical reality becomes the cause (ex-nihilo) of consciousness itself. There is a residual genuflection in these arguments that is usually phrased something like "The world just is" and it is said in a way that implies that further examination of that fact is pointless.

So to sum it up as long as the physical evolution of consciousness is seen as an empirical fact that is established through observation then the evidence is quite clear and it is the empirical (fossil and mechanistic) basis of the biological theory of evolution combined with the fact of our being from the point of view of a body. Once however, it is believed that materiality somehow causes the existence of consciousness itself in the sense of ex-nihilo and not in the sense of material causality and once the role of being itself is eviscerated and the relationship of being itself to consciousness then the meaning of the phrase has been distorted so much that it is in fact incapable of any empirical basis at all and in fact, if it is meant in this sense, is untrue.

To me it all just sounds backwards, especially if we think of a brain as conscious matter, which it really is. It is far less contradictory to think in terms of physical matter evolving from consciousness, since we know that our macrocosmic perception of the world (the only place in which physicality has any meaning) is a thing of consciousness. Perhaps it is a matter of not finding the eye because we are looking with it...

How about little interest in impressing U ?!

U shoud become aware
that asking a question (as u do) logically proves nothing.





David

You are equivocating on the word "evolving".

The evolution of our bodies is an empirical fact posited to explain what we experience. It is a conclusion of natural science, is well established, and can be used to explain predictions that are confirmed by observation. This "evolving" is not the same as "evolving" of the physical world from consciousness. In fact the use of the term "evolution" in the latter context is a misuse even though I get the matter to which I believe you intend to refer.

The positing of a world containing objects that obey physical law and evolve, and the association of our consciousness with one of these objects is not the emergence of the physical world from perception. They are not the same thing and to use the same word for them and then set up a false dilemma is a logical error.

Not: The physical world evolved from consciousness *or* consciousness evolved from the physical world. But: The physical world evolved from consciousness *and* consciousness evolved from the physical world.

For you the latter occurred sometime after your conception and probably before you were born. The former is ongoing as you read this. Basically the physical world evolved from consciousness and when we observe what we observe has the property of being an objective world in which our perception is associated with a physical object and in which that physical object is the result of evolution in the biological sense.

In the last case the word evolved is used in two senses. The first sense is a structure of being to use a loose term, the second sense is an accidental property of nature that in fact exists and is well established using the evidence collected by biologists. These facts do not contradict each other. Neither is unreal.

Material causality requires causality ex-nihlo not the other way around. If you prefer to use the term "it just is" then go ahead but understand its meaning. To put it in a way a scientist might like it to be heard "The physical theory of evolution assumes that there is a physical world and that we can make observations of it."

The fact not often acknowledged is that we do so by positioning our bodies correctly. There is no observation of Galileo's moons by you except when your eye is placed at one end of the telescope and the other end of the telescope is pointed toward Jupiter. No physical law is specified to enforce this requirement. It is assumed in physics. The telescope must point at two objects not one. This establishes the basis for the association of your consciousness with your body.

This association is purely empirical and not a necessary part of the experience of being. It is an accident of being in the medieval sense of accident. In fact, it is logically possible that it change in the future that is there is a logical possibility for the world to dematerialize and for us to remain conscious and for our conscious experience to still have content.

This logical possibility is restricted by physical law and by the association of our consciousness with our biology - it is therefore logically possible but not, we think, physically possible. (Here strictly I am assuming something beyond physical law but which is at the basis of all experimental physical science - the assumption that we can observe based on the location and functioning of our bodies.) If it (de-materialization) were to occur then the conclusion that the world is physical would have to be revised as the basis for all of the conclusions of natural science, including the material basis of our consciousness, lie upon our experiencing.

Well... I am not trying to disprove evolution theory, but that theory does not speak to this issue.
If consciousness is a phenomenon that emerged from the physical world, then it is logical to ask; how did chemical and physical processes in unconscious matter result in consciousness?
There doesn't exist any observations or evidence to suggest that this happened, yet that is what is generally assumed by most people.