Richard Howard2 said:You claim that man, consciousness, and the universe are inseparable. I know that's your line. Yet, you offer nothing to prove it.
That's flawed inductive reasoning. Just because consciousness is a trait of one cosmic element—humanity—doesn't mean humans are the entire universe. To claim consciousness defines the whole cosmos, or that everything originated from it, is an unjustified leap.
That is a logical fallacy. You take a single attribute of a part and claim it defines the entire whole, then suggest the whole was birthed from that one trait. It’s flawed.
Did you miss my point about the apples? Just because apples grow on certain trees in the USA doesn't mean the entire country is made of apples, much less that the nation originated from them.
Consciousness isn't the catalyst or the bedrock of cosmic evolution. It makes no sense to believe that. Everything we've observed suggests consciousness emerged much later; it is merely a higher, subsequent stage in the evolutionary process.
Likewise—your comparison between skyscraper construction and a natural process is nonsense.
Space remains indifferent. It won't build skyscrapers on its own. Those structures exist only because we have consciousness to demand them. They serve us, not the void.
If man originates from the cosmos, one could argue he creates both the universe and consciousness itself. A circular logic. It only serves to emphasize that consciousness cannot exist before we do.
Only a human can create something without a purpose—art, for instance. Art remains one of our finest indicators of consciousness. Everything else in the universe is merely the byproduct of a process. An artwork is only the result of a cosmic process if a conscious human being existed first to conceive it. We have absolutely no evidence that consciousness predates humanity. All other forms in nature are just the results of physical laws acting upon natural forces.
You’re drawing conclusions from nothing. It makes no sense.
The logical proof that consciousness didn't exist before humans arrived: simple matter cannot perceive itself without an observer.
If consciousness manifests through non-specific natural phenomena, yet we observe nothing of that sort in the wild—only in our own artificial surroundings—then the logic is inescapable. Consciousness only arrived once we were created. Otherwise, it would be visible everywhere else.
Man created through chemistry and physics. But a skyscraper? That comes from consciousness.
Your grasp on the concept of consciousness has always been shaky. There’s zero foundation there. It’s illogical to expect otherwise. If you’re truly convinced, then look toward religion; at least there, people embrace delusions with conviction. It's fine that you believe in something, I suppose. But presenting it as a fact? That isn't quite right.
You clearly don't understand where the boundaries lie. First, you present personal convictions disguised as reasoning—as if the human mind isn't inherently subjective. Then, you pivot to philosophy, which demands far more than mere opinion. Finally, you have the audacity to claim scientific authority, a field that requires actual proof, yet you leap there without even a shred of logical evidence. Typical.
Isn't that a bit foolish?
It isn't foolish simply because you deem me "unqualified." My opinion doesn't lose its validity just because it fails to mirror yours.
You cannot measure things that way. What you’re doing reflects your character rather than any actual logic. You simply want to coerce me into your perspective by labeling my conclusions as foolish just because I reject your version of the truth. Think about what kind of "foundation" you're actually standing on when you make such claims. You aren't a purely logical being; you're driven by much more than simple reason. Logic isn't your only tool here, is it?
I have just as much right to voice my philosophical views as you do. My arguments are just as sound, if not more so. Who exactly do you think you are, telling me where I ought to go?
What makes you any different from me?
This is practically a yellow card. It isn't your first offense. Beyond your supposedly "rational" intellect, I can sense an incredibly narrow emotional intelligence behind these posts.
It is precisely because of this kind of behavior that people need to wake up. They cannot allow someone like you to claim an exclusive right to define truth, or to dictate where others belong. Get it through your head, Richard Howard2: you have no advantage over anyone, not even a worm. In the end, the worm eats you. That is simply universal intelligence. Realize it sooner rather than later. It would be better for you.
Quincy:
| Man was formed through mere chemical and physical processes. A skyscraper, however, is born of consciousness. |
Science hasn't provided any actual proof regarding the emergence of rational beings or the nature of consciousness. Intelligence remains an open, difficult, and complex problem—one that science still fails to answer today. Where exactly does your confidence come from? To think you've found a simple, logical final answer when no one else has succeeded is quite something.
Moving forward.
Dualism isn't an option. You cannot apply two principles at once.
Either consciousness-intelligence exists alone, or matter does. If we assume matter is all there is, then it must be inherently "conscious and intelligent" in its entirety, or not at all. Such is the dilemma.
It cannot be half and half. Matter cannot be split between the intelligent and the mindless—assuming, of course, that man is made of matter.
If a man were merely a product of mindless physical processes, he would remain nothing more than a collection of biological mechanics. But we are not just matter. We are intelligent, conscious beings—entities whose awareness cannot, and should not, be reduced to simple physics.
If science could actually interface directly with my brain, we might finally see my thoughts, images, and sensations rendered objectively on a screen. But that’s an impossibility. It will never happen. Physical processes don't trigger thought; rather, they are merely the consequence of it. We have already established this. Consciousness isn't a physical, objective phenomenon—it is subjective and metaphysical.
A manifested skyscraper is merely the physical embodiment of a mental construct. Materializing an idea into steel and glass. Such is the futility of thought.
A skyscraper lacks any semblance of intellect to the naked eye. Yet, based solely on the engineering required to manifest it, one must conclude it is a pure product of intelligence.
If a skyscraper requires intelligence to exist rather than simply appearing by chance, one can only imagine how unlikely it is that the entire universe—and everyone in it—just happened on its own.
Consider the intelligence required to construct a skyscraper. Then realize the sheer scale of intellect needed to manifest an entire universe—complete with every living thing and the humans capable of building those towers. It’s a lot to process.
A skyscraper requires a complete vision first—a mental construct. Only then can that idea manifest through construction. Without the roof, the foundation is meaningless. And vice versa.
Imagine believing a skyscraper just materialized out of thin air, built itself. A fantasy.
All of a man's intelligence and consciousness exist already within that first, solitary station.
If physical laws exist, they point toward a Legislator.
And in the end... nothing I say stands in opposition to the laws of physics, nor to any "scientific facts."
Richard Howard2, please present your arguments without relying on those crude little jabs to discredit me. Do it for the sake of truth rather than my reputation, or I simply won't bother responding to your posts anymore.😕