pl0bs wrote:You talk about "true" eyes. "True" is a subjective classification. It has no physical basis. You cannot point to an eye that has no simpler evolutionary ancestor, unless you reject evolution.Darwinsbulldog wrote:I have done this above and in other posts. Eye-spots, nerve ganglia, neither of which are 'true" eyes or true brains. A plant can detect sunlight without eyes. This is an emergent process.
I cannot absolutely disprove that consci9usness is not present in rocks. But I do not have to, it is you, in the absence of demonstrating that rocks have a seat of consciousness [such as a brain] it is you that has to provide the burden of proof.
An insect has small ganglia, even a small brain, and therefore we can argue some level of awareness and consciousness. With a rock you cannot.
Previously ive explained why evolution is incompatible with materialism.
Btw you asked me for evidence of consciousness in atoms. Just to make sure this question even makes sense, can you give me evidence of consciousness in humans? Last i checked, consciousness is invisible to any measuring device. Which, btw also renders moot, even irrational, the argument methodological naturalism is a good reason to believe in materialism.
Ah, the "no true Scotsman fallacy". If I say that one person is taller than another, then this is subjective? There may be a continuum of heights, where it may be difficult to distinguish or classify two people of nearly equal height, but we can still group the continuum at intervals. In a similar manner, we can group light sensitive cells, eye, spot, pinhole eyes, and "true eyes" according to type. We can define a true eye as having a lens, and a pin-hole eye or an eye spot as being "not true eyes". Subjective the boundaries may be, but they are still useful.