Originally posted by Soulman
I appreciate the distinction you’re making. Prior to the development of neurons, there was no consciousness. But, how does this solve the problem of matter without consciousness becoming matter with consciousness? You are saying, “neurons did it,” but neurons themselves are composed of unconscious matter. Neurons may explain the mechanics of consciousness, or how consciousness “works,” but neurons cannot explain themselves. At some point neurons didn’t exist, and at some point neurons “appeared.” You have explained consciousness by attributing consciousness to neurons, but substituting one word for another (neurons for consciousness) does not solve the problem of where the consciousness generating capacity of neurons came from in the first place, other than falling back on the grand catch-all explanation of “evolution” (atheists have their catch-all, theists have theirs). The argument moves back a step further (from consciousness to neurons to…?), but you don’t have to be an atheist to accept the fact that neurons exist and are necessary for consciousness. Theists accept the reality of neurons, the same way theists accept the reality of arms and legs. Theists do not “deny” the reality of neurons, or consciousness. Theists reject what amounts to the atheist’s statement of faith that “Evolution Did It.”
Perhaps you’d agree that describing how consciousness “works” doesn’t prove anything, one way or the other. I’m not sure if anyone here is arguing about the mechanics of consciousness. The question seems to be how inert matter organized itself and moved from an unconscious state to a conscious state. Atheists say, “evolution did it.” Theists say, “God did it.” Atheists reject the alternative of theism, not because a creator doesn’t make sense or is theoretically impossible, but because they believe that a creator isn’t necessary. An atheist can say, “this is how consciousness might have happened without God,” or “this is how consciousness might have happened through evolution,” without having to prove their case. That isn’t science. That’s philosophy.
How does a material formation, without the property of emitting light, become a material form that has the ability of emitting light.
Well, the current cosmological theiry is that gaseous clouds (consisting of Hydrogen, Helium and some other elements), which can be found anywhere in the universe, due to the mutual gravitational attraction of the atoms residing in the gas, contract, becomes more dense, and therefore hotter, which decreases the average distance between atom nuclei, untill all of a sudden, the proces of thermo-nuclear reaction is ignited, causing the material object in becoming a light emitting star.
This is a very simple demonstration how in the material world, that of anorganic matter, new properties come into existence, which were not previously there, and which is also an example of the general dialectical law in which quantitaive changes (increase of density and temperatur) cause a new qualitative property (thermo-nuclear reaction). This kind of phenomena within matter is to be found throughout all of the material world (transformation of quantity into quality).
Another property of the anorganic material world is that within matter, we can find traces of previous actions working on matter, which is a primitive and passive form of reflection. Like for instance if iron is magnetized, remains of the magnetic field can be seen in that iron, and all kinds of rock formation showing signs of previous occurences to this rock formation.
Which shows also that the material world has a history, and traces of earlier occurences are being kept in a passive way (reflection), and shows a progressiive development in that new properties come into existence due to material interactions.
For instance in stars lighter elemens are used in nucleo-thermal reactions and form the higher elements, after the star explodes and emits it's outer cores, this material is brought into the galactic space, and is used in newly formed planets and stars, etc.
In the bio-chemical world, we find demonstrations of this principle in that new chemical structures, seemingly random, can construct themselves out of pre-existing an-organic and organic matter, that can manifest new properties. One of those new properties being that a certain type of macro-molecule had the property of being able of making an exact copy of itself, which then quite quickly would dominate the oceans, until variations of this molecule did their copying tasks even better.
Test laboratoria which simulate the supposed biochemical conditions at earth, have already showed that most of the compounds necessary for life, dig up in this test as a result of the chemical components, water and sunlight. We have of course no way of knowing what exact condition were existing 3,2 billion years ago, but at least it present the likeliness of the emergence of life from non life, based on nothing more as the physical and chemical properties of matter.
The most basic feature of life and evolution, which is the ability to self reproduce, the outside influence on the material causing variations in the early life form, and the adaptation to the environment and perhaps also competition between variations of self reproducing macromolecules, form the basic ingredients for life. The gradual changes taking place, causing new and different types of pre-life self-reproducing macromolecules to take on new shapes and "try" new copying strategies, lead for instance to larger clusters of coexisting macromolecules, and finally to the form of life we called one-celled life, in which there is a complex system of molecules working together. Here is where we find the first evidence of the emergence of such lifeforms from geology.
From here, life takes in a new direction, in which more cells begin to work together, ultimately leading to specialisation of certain cells, performing different tasks for the organism.
Necessary for life is not only it's ability to self-reproduce, but also the intake of energy and other chemical or biological compounds, to sustain itself, and it's ability to use energy in order to be able to react to the outside environment. This will be already the case from the one-celled organisms. As new cells are being added to the organism in the course of it's reproduction and variations, more and more cells specialise. For example cells that can take in chemical and biological compounds from the environment, while other cells specialise in motoric properties, enabling the organism to displace itself, and also cells that are able of reacting to outside influences, like sunlight, heat, etc. which become the sensory organs. Already in this form of life we find then the ability of the organism to react on different stimuli, and to act accordingly, to take in food in order to provide the energy necessary for any reaction and sustainence of the organism, etc.
This is also the birth of the most primitive form of consciousness, which is based on the ability to reflect on the outer world, and which causes an inner and/or outer reaction by the organism.
In plants for example this means they can bend to the light, in order to catch more sunlight, and for animals to react on light, heat, etc, and to move to a different place, in order to enlarge the possibilities of self-sustainence. Of course, at first these ways of reflecting on the world are almost purely mechanical, and do not show any signs of thought, but in the course of evolution more complex form of reflection on the outside world came into existence. Consciousness as in human beings, therefore has had many ancestors, although in more primitive and significantly less complex forms.
