[tortoise]

Heartlander was dealing with matters beyond physical sciences, in a very logical little fable about consciousness not being subsumptive of consciouslessness.

My dismissal was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Heartlanders construction, and even the very argument of subsumption, is essentially a false dichotomy or at the very least a strawman. I was (sort of) yanking things back on track.

Now, if you are asserting that this discussion has transcended into the metaphysical and thereby dismissing any requirements for grounding in rigor or mathematics, then I'm fine with that and I'll just shut up. But as far as I knew we weren't going there. Somewhere a couple towns back the discussion jumped its tracks or at least took a strange turn. Certainly some of the assumptions of the current discussion (re: subsumption) are very strange and don't seem particularly reasonable to me. It's all good though, and it isn't like this is my thread or anything.

[unspun]

Hmmm....

Well, if I weigh subsumption in one hand and in the other I weigh universe and abiogenesis from uniformity... well, I'm a reasonable man. You can't do much math, unless you have value and operations in systems, to subsume as the mathematical discipline of your choice. You can't do much reasoning, unless you have reason to use and a universe which operates according to reason. You have have a purpose in life in a purposeless universe.

A presumption of nihilistec origin is precisely the kind of overapplication and policing of thought, made falsely in the name of science in order to attempt to obviate God, which this thread is all about, IMHO.