THINK OF THAT RAREST of vintage cars, an Edsel made of rutherfordium with an interior accessorized with leather made from Orloxonian stodontodons. Think of a brown one with orange trim. The car is in near mint condition, with a small dent in it put there by a collision with a tricycle.
There, you've just thought of something which never existed in the entire history of DNA, rutherfordium being an artificial element which is extremely radioactive and which in its longest lasting isotope would not last long enough to make much of anything with, certainly not more than a few molecules of an oxide or something. It was not discovered or, made, really, until 1964, well after the last Edsel rolled off the short-lived line in the 1950s.
Stodontodons are a dinosaur I just made up (if there has been something called that already, I mean the other species that goes by the same name) and they have never been found in fossil form on Orloxonia, which I also made up by letting my fingers type out some letters without thinking about it.
Tell me you didn't have an idea of a car that couldn't have existed in your experience or in the history of DNA. Now did "DNA" know how to make the object that is the material basis of the idea you now have in your head?
"DNA" in most of the uses of the term is one of the many atheist gods of popular imagination, it is something that does things that DNA in reality has never and never will do, among other things having that omniscience that it would have to have to answer all of those inconvenient questions I asked of the atheist-materialist "brain only" model of consciousness. There are lots of such atheist gods created out of the necessity of them coming up with unevidenced, all inclusive explanations of phenomena that they can't account for otherwise, "natural selection," is certainly one such god to which all manner of unevidenced, unexplained powers of creation are given. Two of the other most often resorted to by atheist ideologues in science and out are "random chance" and "probability".
Atheists are always making up gods without admitting that that's what they're doing. "Natural selection" is certainly the creator god of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, to name only two.
Update: Oh, yeah, I forgot about that, the update.
I am under no obligation to come up with a replacement for "DNA" or "natural selection" as an explanation of how consciousness happens, your demand that I do is not out of a requirement of criticism of the idea, there is no obligation of a critic to come up with a replacement in order to point out the problem of a proposal that doesn't work.
I don't believe that minds are material entities. If that is right there is no way to limit them to meet the requirements and stay within the boundaries of what we imagine as physical causation. If consciousness, the mind, is not material or physical (they don't necessarily mean the same things) there is every reason to expect would have properties that lie outside of physical causation or they would not be something else. The reason that materialism, atheism, "physicalism" or "naturalism" (to cover as many of those dodges as I know are in current use) cannot deal with "the hard problem of consciousness" is that their insisted on framing is not adequate to account for the human experience of consciousness and thinking. If I'm right there is no way that science will ever be able to do that, though scientists and the true believers in atheist-materialism will pretend it has, or lie about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment