Which evolved first, consciousness or senses

[ImmortalFlame]

I apologise for any perceived insult. I have asked you many times to show me how matter creates intelligence. Your only answers are "It does" and now more specifically matter creates brains and presto intelligence from particles of matter that have no intelligence. I have asked you to educate me on what makes matter of all different types suddenly in a particular combination create intelligence and all you answer is it does.

There really isn't any more explanation necessary without getting into neuro-biology, and since you still apparently believe in the 10% of the brain myth, I'm not quite prepared to try and go over that with you. So far, you seem to simply be saying that consciousness cannot be a result of a physical process, and I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that this is true. You have failed. Consciousness is the result of a brain, which is a physical organ. Do you deny this? In what way is consciousness incapable of being the result of a physical process?

So far your only knowledge seems to be matter creates intelligence because it creates a network that can pass signals and suddenly becomes intelligent.

"Suddenly"? No. Intelligence is a result of a physical system that is capable of independently examining and assessing information, which is a result of the evolutionary process of the brain. So far, this is all we can safely conclude. Do you have any facts that contradict this?

Once again I ask you to show me how things without intelligence create intelligence.

How can things without a hinge create a hinge?

Where is the decision made and by what particles does intelligence manifest.

No "decision" needs to be made. The brain is the result of natural, evolutionary processes.

Please don't just answer that matter forms brains and presto matter is intelligent.

I have never said matter is intelligent. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly explained that intelligence is a byproduct of a physical process.

When I say what makes things move you ignore this as if it is meaningless, yet it is the most fundamental question about the universe.

No I didn't, I linked you to a page that explained physical laws.

You haven't attacked the statement matter has no power to move itself

I didn't have to, because it's not something I've ever stated. I have repeatedly explained that particles and their movement are the result of them interacting in spaces governed by physical laws.

as yet and I ask again what moves matter and how does something that cannot think organise into such perfect combinations.

And, once again, I answer:

1- Physical laws
2- It doesn't need to "think" in order to be subject to said physical laws
3- You have no basis on which to assert that any combination is "perfect"

You have asked me to give you an example of mind without matter and this is difficult as we move into the realm of unseen intelligence or an understanding of what moves matter.

In other words, you have no evidence to support you claims.

As your only concept is matter creates mind then there is no hope of discussing something unseen.

I have asked you to provide evidence. If you cannot present it, then it can hardly be considered evidence.

Unless you answer me what makes matter move. Physical forces was your answer and yet you dispute that I understand this as saying the movement then is random.

Of course, because they're not even remotely the same thing.

Either it is random by physical forces or not random. Which is it. If not random are you suggesting that some other force besides random interactions creates the complex groupings of matter. I am confused. If not random then what is the force other than physical interactions?

Are you under the misapprehension that physical forces are random? When you pour oil into a glass of water, is whether or not the oil rises to the top decided "randomly"?

Though string theory can never be proved the on going papers that suggest the universe is a hologram.

Please provide said papers.

It seems to me to suggest matter is an image on a screen and a final construct not the original idea. Would this suggest such that the pattern of thing must exist before the thing itself can exist as matter. What changes the energy into matter that is viewed here? Is your perspective the universe is a material one with 4% matter or does matter breakdown into many many different bits until energy is perceived though not viewed. as I said string theory cannot be proved only perceived.

Nonsense that you cannot possibly demonstrate.

I perfectly understand brains are capable of receiving thought. Our difference is I see the brain as a computer being fed information on behalf of the mind in body not an organ of matter that suddenly evolves matter to have feelings and emotions.

Why can't it be both? Why is it impossible, to you, for thoughts, information, emotion and feelings to be the result of entirely physical processes?

 

[FearGod]

I do believe meditation does wonders, no matter which religion is practicing it, because there is nothing special about the spirituality itself. It is the way the brain functions, but if it works then do it.

Do you think the courteous person process the data in his brain in different way than a bad person do whereas
both have the same senses?

How do you explain it? why their brains process the same data differently?

 

[Michael Thought]

I apologise for any perceived insult. I have asked you many times to show me how matter creates intelligence. Your only answers are "It does" and now more specifically matter creates brains and presto intelligence from particles of matter that have no intelligence. I have asked you to educate me on what makes matter of all different types suddenly in a particular combination create intelligence and all you answer is it does. So far your only knowledge seems to be matter creates intelligence because it creates a network that can pass signals and suddenly becomes intelligent. Once again I ask you to show me how things without intelligence create intelligence. Where is the decision made and by what particles does intelligence manifest. Please don't just answer that matter forms brains and presto matter is intelligent.

There really isn't any more explanation necessary without getting into neuro-biology, and since you still apparently believe in the 10% of the brain myth, I'm not quite prepared to try and go over that with you. So far, you seem to simply be saying that consciousness cannot be a result of a physical process, and I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that this is true. You have failed. Consciousness is the result of a brain, which is a physical organ. Do you deny this? In what way is consciousness incapable of being the result of a physical process?


"Suddenly"? No. Intelligence is a result of a physical system that is capable of independently examining and assessing information, which is a result of the evolutionary process of the brain. So far, this is all we can safely conclude. Do you have any facts that contradict this?


How can things without a hinge create a hinge?


No "decision" needs to be made. The brain is the result of natural, evolutionary processes.


I have never said matter is intelligent. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly explained that intelligence is a byproduct of a physical process.


No I didn't, I linked you to a page that explained physical laws.


I didn't have to, because it's not something I've ever stated. I have repeatedly explained that particles and their movement are the result of them interacting in spaces governed by physical laws.


And, once again, I answer:

1- Physical laws
2- It doesn't need to "think" in order to be subject to said physical laws
3- You have no basis on which to assert that any combination is "perfect"


In other words, you have no evidence to support you claims.


I have asked you to provide evidence. If you cannot present it, then it can hardly be considered evidence.


Of course, because they're not even remotely the same thing.


Are you under the misapprehension that physical forces are random? When you pour oil into a glass of water, is whether or not the oil rises to the top decided "randomly"?


Please provide said papers.


Nonsense that you cannot possibly demonstrate.


Why can't it be both? Why is it impossible, to you, for thoughts, information, emotion and feelings to be the result of entirely physical processes?

When I say what makes things move you ignore this as if it is meaningless, yet it is the most fundamental question about the universe. You haven't attacked the statement matter has no power to move itself as yet and I ask again what moves matter and how does something that cannot think organise into such perfect combinations. You have asked me to give you an example of mind without matter and this is difficult as we move into the realm of unseen intelligence or an understanding of what moves matter.

As your only concept is matter creates mind then there is no hope of discussing something unseen. Unless you answer me what makes matter move. Physical forces was your answer and yet you dispute that I understand this as saying the movement then is random. Either it is random by physical forces or not random. Which is it. If not random are you suggesting that some other force besides random interactions creates the complex groupings of matter. I am confused. If not random then what is the force other than physical interactions?

Though string theory can never be proved the on going papers that suggest the universe is a hologram. It seems to me to suggest matter is an image on a screen and a final construct not the original idea. Would this suggest such that the pattern of thing must exist before the thing itself can exist as matter. What changes the energy into matter that is viewed here? Is your perspective the universe is a material one with 4% matter or does matter breakdown into many many different bits until energy is perceived though not viewed. as I said string theory cannot be proved only perceived.

I perfectly understand brains are capable of receiving thought. Our difference is I see the brain as a computer being fed information on behalf of the mind in body not an organ of matter that suddenly evolves matter to have feelings and emotions.

By the way Schrodinger perceived the universe not as matter but as shapes and

There really isn't any more explanation necessary without getting into neuro-biology, and since you still apparently believe in the 10% of the brain myth, I'm not quite prepared to try and go over that with you. So far, you seem to simply be saying that consciousness cannot be a result of a physical process, and I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that this is true. You have failed. Consciousness is the result of a brain, which is a physical organ. Do you deny this? In what way is consciousness incapable of being the result of a physical process?


"Suddenly"? No. Intelligence is a result of a physical system that is capable of independently examining and assessing information, which is a result of the evolutionary process of the brain. So far, this is all we can safely conclude. Do you have any facts that contradict this?


How can things without a hinge create a hinge?


No "decision" needs to be made. The brain is the result of natural, evolutionary processes.


I have never said matter is intelligent. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly explained that intelligence is a byproduct of a physical process.


No I didn't, I linked you to a page that explained physical laws.


I didn't have to, because it's not something I've ever stated. I have repeatedly explained that particles and their movement are the result of them interacting in spaces governed by physical laws.


And, once again, I answer:

1- Physical laws
2- It doesn't need to "think" in order to be subject to said physical laws
3- You have no basis on which to assert that any combination is "perfect"


In other words, you have no evidence to support you claims.


I have asked you to provide evidence. If you cannot present it, then it can hardly be considered evidence.


Of course, because they're not even remotely the same thing.


Are you under the misapprehension that physical forces are random? When you pour oil into a glass of water, is whether or not the oil rises to the top decided "randomly"?


Please provide said papers.


Nonsense that you cannot possibly demonstrate.


Why can't it be both? Why is it impossible, to you, for thoughts, information, emotion and feelings to be the result of entirely physical processes?

There really isn't any more explanation necessary without getting into neuro-biology, and since you still apparently believe in the 10% of the brain myth, I'm not quite prepared to try and go over that with you. So far, you seem to simply be saying that consciousness cannot be a result of a physical process, and I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that this is true. You have failed. Consciousness is the result of a brain, which is a physical organ. Do you deny this? In what way is consciousness incapable of being the result of a physical process?


"Suddenly"? No. Intelligence is a result of a physical system that is capable of independently examining and assessing information, which is a result of the evolutionary process of the brain. So far, this is all we can safely conclude. Do you have any facts that contradict this?


How can things without a hinge create a hinge?


No "decision" needs to be made. The brain is the result of natural, evolutionary processes.


I have never said matter is intelligent. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly explained that intelligence is a byproduct of a physical process.


No I didn't, I linked you to a page that explained physical laws.


I didn't have to, because it's not something I've ever stated. I have repeatedly explained that particles and their movement are the result of them interacting in spaces governed by physical laws.


And, once again, I answer:

1- Physical laws
2- It doesn't need to "think" in order to be subject to said physical laws
3- You have no basis on which to assert that any combination is "perfect"

3) is not the earth in a perfect position for life

I find it interesting that you don't see perfection in the construct of the Universe, sad really


In other words, you have no evidence to support you claims.

Neither do you. You cannot prove an electron feels only feelings exist


I have asked you to provide evidence. If you cannot present it, then it can hardly be considered evidence.


Of course, because they're not even remotely the same thing.


Are you under the misapprehension that physical forces are random? When you pour oil into a glass of water, is whether or not the oil rises to the top decided "randomly"?


Please provide said papers.

Scientific America starting ohh 15 years ago. there are many papers have a look.


Nonsense that you cannot possibly demonstrate.

How many world renowned physicists worked on string theory, how may have perceived the universe as energy not matter. I said it could not be proven but then so much of physics is based on perception through formula. Sure you can ignore everything that hasn't yet been proved but then again our universal view is always based on what is proven and what is considered to be possible or probable, until proven or dis-proven. Nonsense, hardly too many published papers by people you would respect. You like Wikipedia so have a look.


Why can't it be both? Why is it impossible, to you, for thoughts, information, emotion and feelings to be the result of entirely physical processes?

Physical forces are in play, my question on the randomness is about how particles group together in complex formations of disparate particles. Are the physical forces guiding the particles to form these things or is it random movements over billions of years that comes up with new things and suddenly a brain that thinks.

You are right I will never agree with the principle that matter creates intelligence since it doesn't hold intelligence to begin with. Evolution suggests a decision is made to change things. What makes the decision, are you suggesting particles collectively decide we need to breath air, we need to walk upright, we need to discover complex chemistry and mathematics as a human brain, though they perform complex mathematics and chemistry as if it were child's play in creating forms. So many contradictions that must ignore basic questions. You insist that particles of matter clumped together feel emotional contexts. Electrons with feelings, nitrates with feelings, blood with ideas, neurons needing a cry. Ridiculous. Giving matter all these attributes without any other force involved is simply wrong.

 

[Michael Thought]

There really isn't any more explanation necessary without getting into neuro-biology, and since you still apparently believe in the 10% of the brain myth, I'm not quite prepared to try and go over that with you. So far, you seem to simply be saying that consciousness cannot be a result of a physical process, and I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that this is true. You have failed. Consciousness is the result of a brain, which is a physical organ. Do you deny this? In what way is consciousness incapable of being the result of a physical process?


"Suddenly"? No. Intelligence is a result of a physical system that is capable of independently examining and assessing information, which is a result of the evolutionary process of the brain. So far, this is all we can safely conclude. Do you have any facts that contradict this?


How can things without a hinge create a hinge?


No "decision" needs to be made. The brain is the result of natural, evolutionary processes.


I have never said matter is intelligent. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly explained that intelligence is a byproduct of a physical process.


No I didn't, I linked you to a page that explained physical laws.


I didn't have to, because it's not something I've ever stated. I have repeatedly explained that particles and their movement are the result of them interacting in spaces governed by physical laws.


And, once again, I answer:

1- Physical laws
2- It doesn't need to "think" in order to be subject to said physical laws
3- You have no basis on which to assert that any combination is "perfect"


In other words, you have no evidence to support you claims.


I have asked you to provide evidence. If you cannot present it, then it can hardly be considered evidence.


Of course, because they're not even remotely the same thing.


Are you under the misapprehension that physical forces are random? When you pour oil into a glass of water, is whether or not the oil rises to the top decided "randomly"?


Please provide said papers.


Nonsense that you cannot possibly demonstrate.
So many scientists you would admire have studied string theory and Scientific America has had it on the front cover. The proposal that the universe is energy first is not new, I am surprised at how you dismiss it as a proposal by the scientific community. Sure i cant demonstrate it but the formulae from these people suggests it. It simply shows they see matter as constructed out of many things that leads back to a unified energy field for all things. Dismiss them if you are that confident, i did not put the theory forward.


Why can't it be both? Why is it impossible, to you, for thoughts, information, emotion and feelings to be the result of entirely physical processes?

There really isn't any more explanation necessary without getting into neuro-biology, and since you still apparently believe in the 10% of the brain myth, I'm not quite prepared to try and go over that with you. So far, you seem to simply be saying that consciousness cannot be a result of a physical process, and I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that this is true. You have failed. Consciousness is the result of a brain, which is a physical organ. Do you deny this? In what way is consciousness incapable of being the result of a physical process?


"Suddenly"? No. Intelligence is a result of a physical system that is capable of independently examining and assessing information, which is a result of the evolutionary process of the brain. So far, this is all we can safely conclude. Do you have any facts that contradict this?


How can things without a hinge create a hinge?


No "decision" needs to be made. The brain is the result of natural, evolutionary processes.


I have never said matter is intelligent. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly explained that intelligence is a byproduct of a physical process.


No I didn't, I linked you to a page that explained physical laws.


I didn't have to, because it's not something I've ever stated. I have repeatedly explained that particles and their movement are the result of them interacting in spaces governed by physical laws.


And, once again, I answer:

1- Physical laws
2- It doesn't need to "think" in order to be subject to said physical laws
3- You have no basis on which to assert that any combination is "perfect"


In other words, you have no evidence to support you claims.


I have asked you to provide evidence. If you cannot present it, then it can hardly be considered evidence.


Of course, because they're not even remotely the same thing.


Are you under the misapprehension that physical forces are random? When you pour oil into a glass of water, is whether or not the oil rises to the top decided "randomly"?


Please provide said papers.


Nonsense that you cannot possibly demonstrate.


Why can't it be both? Why is it impossible, to you, for thoughts, information, emotion and feelings to be the result of entirely physical processes?

 

[idav]

Do you think the courteous person process the data in his brain in different way than a bad person do whereas
both have the same senses?

How do you explain it? why their brains process the same data differently?

I don't think people being individual in anyway changes what I'm saying because meditation has been shown to work the same across the board. I have given a previous answers that it depends on a persons experience and memories. I feel that though people process things the same that our experience makes us look at everything through a certain lens, or at a certain angle. Perspective isn't wrong per se, but rather what reality is saying to us as an individual. You can't say that experience doesn't effect every single individual. We can't see some perspectives until attempting to live in others shoes as there will always be personal bias. Empathy allows us to see things through others eyes and we then are able to simulate other experiences and understand where others are coming from, it isn't impossible as healthy brains should all pretty much function very similar.

This would be a place I start to not like the idea of inherited sin and the corruption of innocence because our environment will inevitably influence us one way or another and it could be out of our control. I think that we should aspire to keep as much control as possible and not let the world corrupt us but often times thats easier said than done.

 

[Michael Thought]

There really isn't any more explanation necessary without getting into neuro-biology, and since you still apparently believe in the 10% of the brain myth, I'm not quite prepared to try and go over that with you. So far, you seem to simply be saying that consciousness cannot be a result of a physical process, and I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that this is true. You have failed. Consciousness is the result of a brain, which is a physical organ. Do you deny this? In what way is consciousness incapable of being the result of a physical process?


"Suddenly"? No. Intelligence is a result of a physical system that is capable of independently examining and assessing information, which is a result of the evolutionary process of the brain. So far, this is all we can safely conclude. Do you have any facts that contradict this?


How can things without a hinge create a hinge?


No "decision" needs to be made. The brain is the result of natural, evolutionary processes.


I have never said matter is intelligent. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly explained that intelligence is a byproduct of a physical process.


No I didn't, I linked you to a page that explained physical laws.


I didn't have to, because it's not something I've ever stated. I have repeatedly explained that particles and their movement are the result of them interacting in spaces governed by physical laws.


And, once again, I answer:

1- Physical laws
2- It doesn't need to "think" in order to be subject to said physical laws
3- You have no basis on which to assert that any combination is "perfect"


In other words, you have no evidence to support you claims.


I have asked you to provide evidence. If you cannot present it, then it can hardly be considered evidence.


Of course, because they're not even remotely the same thing.


Are you under the misapprehension that physical forces are random? When you pour oil into a glass of water, is whether or not the oil rises to the top decided "randomly"?


Please provide said papers.


Nonsense that you cannot possibly demonstrate.


Why can't it be both? Why is it impossible, to you, for thoughts, information, emotion and feelings to be the result of entirely physical processes?

One last thing I would like you to ponder. Ask the question " in the creation of a thing does the idea for a thing exist first or is it a moment of billions a random associations amongst particles that end up creating a thing"?

Now put this to the test.
The first living thing in the oceans. Did the idea for the thing exist before it was created or was it billions of random associations of particles in the environment that accidently created the thing?

Then what came next? did this first thing have the idea to change into something first? if not then where was the decision made to change form? Which particles decided to change the form? Is evolution based on need if so what particles decide need and why.

Now with all these new creatures with new attributes coming from the ones before through evolution, did evolution have the idea, did it exist in the particles to change so completely or was there some random computation of particles buzzing about that suddenly changed a creature.

Now move from ocean to land. Here we can definitely see that there was a decision to change environments completely even if over time. For an action to be taken the idea for the action must exist first then a decision to act must first be had. Did the idea exist first if so what had the idea, or was it the random movement of particles that made the decision to move to land.

A pretty big decision to move from water to air, not one you would think a creature whose biology is survival first and hardly a brain could contemplate and then decide.

So look at all things, does the idea for a thing need to exist before a thing can be made or change from one thing to another or is evolution not based on need but on random movements within stable bodies. Need being the first form of an idea.

The concept matter creates mind and decides need, desire, function and all other things gives particles attributes they simply do not have within themselves. No particle has need or desire, no particle can design form or function with other particles, they cannot conceive the change from water breather to air breather and even as a group cannot make decisions. So only by giving these attributes to matter can matter be considered as creating mind. The only things particles can do is react in the manner they are charged with. Outside of this other forces must hold the attributes I described to allow particles to mimic need.

There really isn't any more explanation necessary without getting into neuro-biology, and since you still apparently believe in the 10% of the brain myth, I'm not quite prepared to try and go over that with you. So far, you seem to simply be saying that consciousness cannot be a result of a physical process, and I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that this is true. You have failed. Consciousness is the result of a brain, which is a physical organ. Do you deny this? In what way is consciousness incapable of being the result of a physical process?


"Suddenly"? No. Intelligence is a result of a physical system that is capable of independently examining and assessing information, which is a result of the evolutionary process of the brain. So far, this is all we can safely conclude. Do you have any facts that contradict this?


How can things without a hinge create a hinge?


No "decision" needs to be made. The brain is the result of natural, evolutionary processes.


I have never said matter is intelligent. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly explained that intelligence is a byproduct of a physical process.


No I didn't, I linked you to a page that explained physical laws.


I didn't have to, because it's not something I've ever stated. I have repeatedly explained that particles and their movement are the result of them interacting in spaces governed by physical laws.


And, once again, I answer:

1- Physical laws
2- It doesn't need to "think" in order to be subject to said physical laws
3- You have no basis on which to assert that any combination is "perfect"


In other words, you have no evidence to support you claims.


I have asked you to provide evidence. If you cannot present it, then it can hardly be considered evidence.


Of course, because they're not even remotely the same thing.


Are you under the misapprehension that physical forces are random? When you pour oil into a glass of water, is whether or not the oil rises to the top decided "randomly"?


Please provide said papers.


Nonsense that you cannot possibly demonstrate.


Why can't it be both? Why is it impossible, to you, for thoughts, information, emotion and feelings to be the result of entirely physical processes?

ly the forms.

 

[FearGod]

I don't think people being individual in anyway changes what I'm saying because meditation has been shown to work the same across the board. I have given a previous answers that it depends on a persons experience and memories. I feel that though people process things the same that our experience makes us look at everything through a certain lens, or at a certain angle. Perspective isn't wrong per se, but rather what reality is saying to us as an individual. You can't say that experience doesn't effect every single individual. We can't see some perspectives until attempting to live in others shoes as there will always be personal bias. Empathy allows us to see things through others eyes and we then are able to simulate other experiences and understand where others are coming from, it isn't impossible as healthy brains should all pretty much function very similar.

This would be a place I start to not like the idea of inherited sin and the corruption of innocence because our environment will inevitably influence us one way or another and it could be out of our control. I think that we should aspire to keep as much control as possible and not let the world corrupt us but often times thats easier said than done.

How you explain repentance?
regardless of the memories and the experiences some people do repent in one day night while others choose not to.

 

[idav]

How you explain repentance?
regardless of the memories and the experiences some people do repent in one day night while others choose not to.

I chalk up most suffering to ignorance, lack of full knowledge.

 

[FearGod]

I chalk up most suffering to ignorance, lack of full knowledge.

Yes, Humans are capable of learning and gaining knowledge.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By the way Schrodinger perceived the universe not as matter but as shapes

What relevance does that have to anything I said?

Physical forces are in play, my question on the randomness is about how particles group together in complex formations of disparate particles. Are the physical forces guiding the particles to form these things or is it random movements over billions of years that comes up with new things and suddenly a brain that thinks.

I've already answered this. Physical forces influence and determine the actions of particles.

You are right I will never agree with the principle that matter creates intelligence since it doesn't hold intelligence to begin with.

And why do you have such difficulty understanding that this position makes no sense? Do you or do not accept the possibility that intelligence can be a property or result of physical processes?

Evolution suggests a decision is made to change things.

No it doesn't. No conscious intent is required in order for a evolutionary change to occur.

What makes the decision, are you suggesting particles collectively decide we need to breath air, we need to walk upright, we need to discover complex chemistry and mathematics as a human brain, though they perform complex mathematics and chemistry as if it were child's play in creating forms.

Again, this is nothing but a red herring. Nothing "decides" any of those things. They are a result of particles forming life, which develops to utilise the environment it finds itself in.

So many contradictions that must ignore basic questions. You insist that particles of matter clumped together feel emotional contexts.

Emotions come from the brain. This is such an incontrovertible fact that we can literally map which areas of the brain contribute to the processing of particular emotional states. Do you believe the brain is non-physical?

Electrons with feelings, nitrates with feelings, blood with ideas, neurons needing a cry. Ridiculous. Giving matter all these attributes without any other force involved is simply wrong.

I never have, and your ridiculous strawman isn't impressing anyone. The fact that you have to invent these childish arguments rather than address the actual points I've made is further proof of your inability to intelligently debate this subject.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One last thing I would like you to ponder. Ask the question " in the creation of a thing does the idea for a thing exist first or is it a moment of billions a random associations amongst particles that end up creating a thing"?

An "idea" of a thing doesn't need to exist in order for said thing to form.

Now put this to the test.
The first living thing in the oceans. Did the idea for the thing exist before it was created or was it billions of random associations of particles in the environment that accidently created the thing?

This is a false dichotomy. The "idea" doesn't need to exist before the organism itself does, and the process that lead to its creation needn't be "random" - it can merely be the natural result of particles acting in a particular state. Case in point, have you ever rolled dice? You can roll a dice without first having any idea what number it is going to land on (or even having any concept of numbers), and the result of said roll cannot possibly be accurately predicted by you. By any human standard, the result of an average dice roll is "random" because we have no reliable means to predict the result. However, the number the dice lands on isn't determined "randomly", but is the natural result of the strength and direction the dice is rolled in, the surface it lands on, wind resistance, or any number of variables that impact the result. In this sense, it is not random, but a natural result of an arrangement of particles acting in a particular space governed by physical laws. Do you understand the difference?

Then what came next? did this first thing have the idea to change into something first?

No. No idea is required. Just properties of matter interacting in a state governed by physical laws.

if not then where was the decision made to change form?

Nowhere. No "decision" was required.

Which particles decided to change the form?

None of them. Particles don't "decide" things.

Is evolution based on need if so what particles decide need and why.

Evolution doesn't affect "particles", it affects living populations. In those populations, evolution is determined by the rate of mutations and environmental, selective pressures which result in said mutations being naturally selected for or against.

Now with all these new creatures with new attributes coming from the ones before through evolution, did evolution have the idea, did it exist in the particles to change so completely or was there some random computation of particles buzzing about that suddenly changed a creature.

False dichotomy, again. Mutation is random, but selection is not. Nothing "decided" to change - the changes came about as a natural result of living organisms reproducing with variation in a system subject to natural selection and other environmental pressures.

Now move from ocean to land. Here we can definitely see that there was a decision to change environments completely even if over time.

You keep using the word "decision". Why are you so convinced that any step of this process was conscious? Can you please discard this notion of "decisions"?

For an action to be taken the idea for the action must exist first then a decision to act must first be had.

That is demonstrably false. When exactly did wind and erosion "decide" to form the grand canyon?

Did the idea exist first if so what had the idea, or was it the random movement of particles that made the decision to move to land.

Please get over this false dichotomy.

A pretty big decision to move from water to air, not one you would think a creature whose biology is survival first and hardly a brain could contemplate and then decide.

So look at all things, does the idea for a thing need to exist before a thing can be made or change from one thing to another or is evolution not based on need but on random movements within stable bodies. Need being the first form of an idea.

The concept matter creates mind and decides need, desire, function and all other things gives particles attributes they simply do not have within themselves. No particle has need or desire, no particle can design form or function with other particles, they cannot conceive the change from water breather to air breather and even as a group cannot make decisions. So only by giving these attributes to matter can matter be considered as creating mind. The only things particles can do is react in the manner they are charged with. Outside of this other forces must hold the attributes I described to allow particles to mimic need.

Do you have any evidence that demonstrates that particles "reacting in a manner they are charged with" cannot, naturally, result in a thinking brain?

 

[FearGod]

An "idea" of a thing doesn't need to exist in order for said thing to form.

How do you know that? examples please.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How do you know that? examples please.

Literally everything that has ever existed.

 

[FearGod]

Literally everything that has ever existed.

But how can you be sure there were no idea?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But how can you be sure there were no idea?

I can't, I can only be certain that an idea doesn't need to pre-exist something. No matter in what method of formation of the Universe you believe in, you must accept that.

 

[FearGod]

I can't, I can only be certain that an idea doesn't need to pre-exist something. No matter in what method of formation of the Universe you believe in, you must accept that.

Do you have example of things that exist and do some specific jobs without a prior idea for their existence and how
sure you're that there were no idea behind it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you have example of things that exist and do some specific jobs without a prior idea for their existence and how
sure you're that there were no idea behind it?

Life. I can be sure there were no idea behind it, because no minds pre-date life.

 

[FearGod]

Life. I can sure there were no idea behind it, because no minds pre-date life.

I mean example of natural things, things that we can observe to exist and doing a specific job without prior plan.
IOW examples from our daily life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I mean example of natural things, things that we can observe to exist and doing a specific job without prior plan.
IOW examples from our daily life.

Are you saying life isn't natural?

 

[FearGod]

Are you saying life isn't natural?

You're one example of it, but you didn't come without prior plan.