I think science is way ahead of you here. There are many good arguments that human intelligence is the result of physical causes. A lot of simple ones too. One being that we start as little fetuses with no brains at all. Everything that is required for us to be conscious would seem to be shown step by step through other species and embryology. We certainly do not understand it all, but I see no real line between a conscious thing and a non-conscious thing... we place a line there because it is what distinguishes us from other animals, but what is to stop them from evolving consciousness?

The Upper Paleolithic Revolution or Great Leap Forward? One of many problems cultural and physical anthropologists are dealing with concerning homo sapiens sapiens and the evolution of modern human behavior, considered with our general history of cultural "leaps" -- the genetic problems are starting to loom large, too, in this field.

rebecca

How can a scientific law have life? We understand Galileo's law of falling bodies. 1/2gt2. What is not intelligible about it?

Now you're just bored, how many of your 7,000+ posts have been about beans anyways?

That's a hell of a way to agree with someone.

Maybe I just want to be confrontational, rawr!

But did it make sense? It is a difficult idea to even want to understand, to think we are nothing more than the result of a cocktail of physical phenomena at the classical and quantum level...

Now you're just bored, how many of your 7,000+ posts have been about beans anyways?

Maybe I just want to be confrontational, rawr!

But did it make sense? It is a difficult idea to even want to understand, to think we are nothing more than the result of a cocktail of physical phenomena at the classical and quantum level...

What makes cultural leaps a genetic problem? Is there no difference between mental capacity and brain usage? Meaning: If a cup is filled halfway, can it not be filled anymore?

How is it possible for the mind to relate to the world and to understand the natural laws if it is a physical object?

Maybe I just want to be confrontational, rawr!

But did it make sense? It is a difficult idea to even want to understand, to think we are nothing more than the result of a cocktail of physical phenomena at the classical and quantum level...

You mean, you would swap the eternal for the ephemeral? Now why would you do that? And where on the Serenghetti did we evolve the ability to launch the moon shot?

Keeping up a brain that can do everything from regulating heartbeats to wondering about consciousness is a costly undertaking. It soaks up about 20 percent of the body's oxygen supply - ten times its share by weight. Moreover, the human brain is so big that it makes birth exceptionally difficult. Women's hips are as broad as they can be and still allow bipedal locomotion. The tragic consequence is that, without modern medicine, an appalling number of mothers and babies die in childbirth.
That creates negative selection pressure, which must mean that there is an even greater opposing selection pressure in favor of big brains. What could explain that pressure?

How is it possible for the mind to relate to the world and to understand the natural laws if it is a physical object?

Excellent point. The mind is not a physical object. It may be grounded somehow in the physical, but it itself as also the cause of the "physical"....

This is why science, however useful and impressive, is pragmatism, because it does not address ontology. Kant is shrewder here than Newton, and Hegel is shrewder than Kant.

As this can of worms has now been opened, let's see what is in it, starting with

The question was: how do we account for human evolution when evolution is not the result of a random event?

What is the nature of man in relation to this theory of evolution?

It gets much better......

Of course, it can make sense the question is, are you and kenneth capable of dealing with the conclusions of your position?

You are required to postulate in what way the human mind is a physical object and what is the nature between human minds and the "laws of nature". How is it possible for the mind to relate to the world and to understand the natural laws if it is a physical object?

Why would it not be possible to understand physical laws as a physical object? .

The question was: how do we account for human evolution when evolution is not the result of a random event?