compatibilism

[phyllo]

Well, given the Benjamin Button Syndrome of course. Jane's friend is on her way to meet Mary, forgets her purse, goes back inside to get it, comes out again and on the way to her car is hit by a bus and killed.

What if you applied that to Mary's abortion?

Some last minute event would alter her actions.

Then your idea that she was "never not going to get an abortion" goes out the window. So does the idea of a fixed fate.

[iambiguous]

Could someone kindly clarify the concept of the "great paradox or dilemma" regarding Mary and Jane? It appears to me that this might be related to determinism or science, and I'm curious to understand why it's significant. Despite my repeated attempts to comprehend the matter, I've been unsuccessful thus far.

Right, the "concept". That doesn't surprise me.

But how hard is it to differentiate between a world where the human species has "somehow" acquired free will and Mary is able to weigh the pros and the cons of killing her unborn clump of cells/baby and chooses of her own volition not to abort Jane, and a world in which Mary is compelled by a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to abort Jane.

I have no difficulty distinguishing an illusion from the real world.

That's not the point. The point for some determinists is that you distinguish between illusion and reality only as your brain compels you to distinguish it. You have a dream about something and call that an illusion of reality constructed entirely by your brain chemically and neurologically. You experience the same thing in the waking world and call that reality. But what if that experience in turn unfolds in the only possible world? Behaviors you "choose" only because your brain compels you to...as in the dream.

Sure, I'm no less convinced myself that there has got to be a difference. But how do I go about pinning down [experientially, experimently, scientifically etc.] that in fact there is a difference? What do the neuroscientist tell us about this?

Then the part where the compatibilists among us reconcile determinism as they understand it with moral responsibility as they understand it.

There is no moral responsibility since the natural world has no free will. Is this what you have been discussing for the past few months? I would expect that you had come to some kind of conclusion by now. What is it?

No, I point out again and again that any conclusions any of us make about all of these things is subsumed in what we still don't grasp about this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Also, I keep waiting for you to respond to this:

Click.

Again, with BigMike, my main interest lies in grasping whether, given how he understands a "no free will determined universe", he either does or does not opt freely to post this. Instead, compelled or not, he produces yet another "general description intellectual/philosophical contraption" in which the explanation revolves around words defining and then defending yet more words still. And, apparently, his aim/"aim" here seems to be that of the objectivist: to convey to others that it is his explanation or they are wrong.

Unless of course he can offer us a definitive/demonstrable account of how lifeless matter did evolve into biological matter here on earth billions of years ago evolving further into conscious biological matter millions of years ago evolving into philosophers a few thousand years ago.

Using, I suppose, the scientific method to establish this?

[iambiguous]

I'm repetitive below. Apologies. I am just hoping that one of the wordings will make clear the question I have. All the various versions come down to something like: in giving these two examples of what might happen to Jane, one in a determined world and one in a free will world, are you saying that the free will world is a better one in general? and if so on what grounds?

That part often comes down "for all practical purposes" to this:

1] we don't have free will, so my own miserable failure of a life is completely beyond my control
2] we do have free will, and my own hugely successful and fulfilling life is entirely of my own making

Think Nietzsche and the uberman/last man distinction. No free will and both are only as they ever could have been...free will and both are responsible for their place in life

The ubermen can insist that, in a free will world, they deserve to be among the masters because, entirely of their own volition, they do deserve to be. The last men can insist that, in a determined world, they are slaves only because they were never able not to be.

Hell, in a free will world where human behaviors are often predicated on dasein and on the Benjamin Button Syndrome, the possibilities are practically endless. But in the free will world Jane might stick around, while in the determined world she's necessarily toast.

In that specific case, sure. Jane who probably does not get a name never gets born. But in the free will universe, maybe she gets born, maybe not. And other babies who will get born in the determinist universe will get aborted in the free will universe, since people are free to do this and not compelled by religion, guilt, or whatever to bring the child to term. So, I don't really get the point.

Again, what can I say...

In the determined universe, birth or abortion is part of the either/or world. The laws of matter are such that the brains of some will compel them to abort the unborn while the brains of others will compel them to give birth. Then the brains of others around them will compel them to react to the birth/abortion in the only possible reality as well. It's moral. It's immoral.

Are you arguing that more babies will live in a free will world?
Are you arguing that people will do better in general in a free will world?

I'm only arguing that in a free will world as I understand it, there will be some measure of autonomy such that birth or abortion becomes a part of the is/ought world among those who can choose among alternative options. Obviously, if a pregnant woman lives in a community where abortions are illegal, there are likely to be fewer abortions https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... is-illegal

As for faring better or worse in a free will world, we'll need contexts. What's crucial though is that in a free will world better and worse can be discussed and debated given at least some capacity to think through both the initial premises and the final conclusions. In a wholly determined world, however, better and worse are interchangeable to nature. One brain may conclude that something is better but what does that really mean when it could never have concluded it was worse?

I haven't undertood what these examples are supposed to show. It seems like in your free will universes the abortion doesn't take place. I mean, in the examples. You don't assert this, but is it meant to be implicit?

What do these possible events in the two universes show us? What do they indicate?

Well, as I noted above in a post I am waiting for you to respond to...

Ask Jane why it is important to her that her mother was able to opt not to abort her instead of having no other option but to abort her.

Then ask the compatibilists to explain how they reconcile determinism as they understand it with moral responsibility as they understand it. Unless, again, in a determined universe as I understand it in a free will world, even their explanation itself is wholly compelled by their material brains.

Ask the babies who in a determinist universe would have been born, but in a free will universe would not have been?

In a wholly determined universe asking anything of anyone is asking them only what you were never able to opt not to ask them. My point is that in a determined universe where Mary's brain was programed by the laws of nature to compel her to abort Jane, one might be programed in turn to ask Mary why she did it. But Jane is never around to be asked anything at all.

But, of course: in a free will universe where Mary's friend is hit by the bus and is unable to argue Mary out of aborting Jane, Mary opts to abort her. No Jane around then either. But in a free will world given the right combination of all the existential variables involved [for Jane] Jane has a chance of being born.

Also, however, in this free will world, Jane's life might become so miserable [given other combinations of existential variables] that she curses her mother for giving birth to her.

Ask Svetlana whose mother in the determinist universe was compelled by motherly love to stop her boyfriend from raping Svetlana, but in the free will universe for some reason was not compelled by her motherly love.

Yes, that's how it works. Good things and bad things happen to people in both worlds. But in the determinist world [as some understand it] both the behaviors and our reactions to them are entirely fated, destined. In the determined world even when we do hold people responsible for what they do that is only because we were never able not to.

Whereas, in the free will world, moral responsibility is not just on automatic pilot. We can, instead, think situations through to the best of our ability; and then, of our own volition, offer reasons why we construe some behaviors to be good and others bad. The part that "I" root subjectively/intersubjectively in dasein given a free will universe.

I still don't get the point. For some reason you focus on one instance and seem to imply that free will leads to better outcomes for fetuses and maybe all of us. Again, I say 'seem to imply'. Maybe you don't mean that. Please be clear.

Clear? I'm the last person to ask that of. Being "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments revolving around things like abortion, "better or worse" are no less rooted existentially in the particular lives that each of us live. What's better for some is worse for others.

Yes, in a free will world different things will happen than in a determined world, since things are not determined. But it seems like you are saying it will be better for babies and I see no reason to believe that.

But I'm not saying that. All I am noting is that for Jane in a free will world she is at least around to weigh in herself on all this. Though in fact, as noted above, she may well be cursing her mother up and down for bringing her into this shitty world.

For example, Jane could be one of these...

"Teen Girls Report Record Levels of Sadness, C.D.C. Finds
Adolescent girls reported high rates of sadness, suicidal thoughts and sexual violence, as did teenagers who identified as gay or bisexual.

Nearly three in five teenage girls felt persistent sadness in 2021, double the rate of boys, and one in three girls seriously considered attempting suicide, according to data released on Monday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The findings, based on surveys given to teenagers across the country, also showed high levels of violence, depression and suicidal thoughts among lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. More than one in five of these students reported attempting suicide in the year before the survey, the agency found.

The rates of sadness are the highest reported in a decade, reflecting a long-brewing national tragedy only made worse by the isolation and stress of the pandemic.

“I think there’s really no question what this data is telling us,” said Dr. Kathleen Ethier, head of the C.D.C.’s adolescent and school health program. “Young people are telling us that they are in crisis.”

From the New York Times.

In a free will universe some people who are not killers will kill. Some people who kill in the determinist universe might not. Since their background and mood won't compel the murder.

I don't see any reason to see better outcomes in a free will universe or in a determinist universe.

I don't either. Instead, it really comes down to either having or not having a free choice in matters that pertain to your own actual existence.

In a free will universe no one is compelled by guilt or love or hate or compassion or frustration to do things to and with other people. Who knows what it would be like. More abandoned children? More murders? Less murders?

Exactly. Who really know? Unless, of course, there is a multiverse and it is discovered that in one of the universes there is an Earth where determinism prevails and one where free will prevails. And we are able to note the distinctions between them.

[BigMike]

Again, with BigMike, my main interest lies in grasping whether, given how he understands a "no free will determined universe", he either does or does not opt freely to post this. Instead, compelled or not, he produces yet another "general description intellectual/philosophical contraption" in which the explanation revolves around words defining and then defending yet more words still. And, apparently, his aim/"aim" here seems to be that of the objectivist: to convey to others that it is his explanation or they are wrong.

I have repeatedly stated that free will does not exist. I have repeatedly stated that I am a strict determinist. One obvious implication of this is that, given my understanding of the "no free will-determined universe," I am not choosing to post this on my own volition. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that.

Regarding your assertions about my motivations or objectives, you are in error. Moreover, even if your claim were true, it would have no bearing on the issue of free will.

Unless of course he can offer us a definitive/demonstrable account of how lifeless matter did evolve into biological matter here on earth billions of years ago evolving further into conscious biological matter millions of years ago evolving into philosophers a few thousand years ago.

Using, I suppose, the scientific method to establish this?

This statement only serves to illustrate your complete confusion.

Nonetheless, I will offer this comment:

The origin and nature of consciousness is a difficult and largely unresolved issue in neuroscience and philosophy. Many scientists and philosophers believe consciousness arose from a combination of genetic, evolutionary, and environmental factors, although there is no definitive answer.

One theory holds that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain's complex neural networks, which evolved through natural selection over millions of years. As the complexity of the brain increased, it developed the capacity to process and integrate vast amounts of sensory information from the environment, allowing organisms to adapt to changing conditions and survive in diverse ecological niches.

According to another theory, the evolution of language and social interaction played a crucial role in the emergence of consciousness. Self-awareness and introspection may have developed as a result of the ability to communicate and share information with others.

Still, other theories assert that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and that it exists at all levels of organization, from subatomic particles to human brains.

The precise mechanisms by which human consciousness arose are still the subject of ongoing scientific research and debate.

Regardless of the situation, the fact that the universe is governed by the conservation laws of physics remains unchanged.

[Flannel Jesus]

Why in the world does biggy always assume the desirable outcomes are in the world with free will? That's a very poisonous assumption to make in this conversation, with no justification.

[Iwannaplato]

That part often comes down "for all practical purposes" to this:

1] we don't have free will, so my own miserable failure of a life is completely beyond my control
2] we do have free will, and my own hugely successful and fulfilling life is entirely of my own making

Are these your thoughts about you? When you consider free will vs. determinsm? I don't understand.

Hell, in a free will world where human behaviors are often predicated on dasein and on the Benjamin Button Syndrome, the possibilities are practically endless. But in the free will world Jane might stick around, while in the determined world she's necessarily toast.

In that specific case, sure. Jane who probably does not get a name never gets born. But in the free will universe, maybe she gets born, maybe not. And other babies who will get born in the determinist universe will get aborted in the free will universe, since people are free to do this and not compelled by religion, guilt, or whatever to bring the child to term. So, I don't really get the point.

Again, what can I say...

In the determined universe, birth or abortion is part of the either/or world. The laws of matter are such that the brains of some will compel them to abort the unborn while the brains of others will compel them to give birth. Then the brains of others around them will compel them to react to the birth/abortion in the only possible reality as well. It's moral. It's immoral.

Are you arguing that more babies will live in a free will world?
Are you arguing that people will do better in general in a free will world?

I'm only arguing that in a free will world as I understand it, there will be some measure of autonomy such that birth or abortion becomes a part of the is/ought world among those who can choose among alternative options. Obviously, if a pregnant woman lives in a community where abortions are illegal, there are likely to be fewer abortions https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... is-illegal

As for faring better or worse in a free will world, we'll need contexts. What's crucial though is that in a free will world better and worse can be discussed and debated given at least some capacity to think through both the initial premises and the final conclusions. In a wholly determined world, however, better and worse are interchangeable to nature. One brain may conclude that something is better but what does that really mean when it could never have concluded it was worse?

So, you're not saying Jane died in the determinist universe, but if it had been a free will universe, she might have lived, so a free will universe is better.

I haven't undertood what these examples are supposed to show. It seems like in your free will universes the abortion doesn't take place. I mean, in the examples. You don't assert this, but is it meant to be implicit?

What do these possible events in the two universes show us? What do they indicate?

In a wholly determined universe asking anything of anyone is asking them only what you were never able to opt not to ask them. My point is that in a determined universe where Mary's brain was programed by the laws of nature to compel her to abort Jane, one might be programed in turn to ask Mary why she did it. But Jane is never around to be asked anything at all.

Just as babies aborted in a free will world will not be around to be asked anything at all. I am not sure what Jane not getting to say something means or shows.

I do understand that aborted fetuses never end up in discussions with people.

But, of course: in a free will universe where Mary's friend is hit by the bus and is unable to argue Mary out of aborting Jane, Mary opts to abort her. No Jane around then either. But in a free will world given the right combination of all the existential variables involved [for Jane] Jane has a chance of being born.

Also, however, in this free will world, Jane's life might become so miserable [given other combinations of existential variables] that she curses her mother for giving birth to her.

Or there is a Mary who uses her free will to abort Jane, some Jane.

Ask Svetlana whose mother in the determinist universe was compelled by motherly love to stop her boyfriend from raping Svetlana, but in the free will universe for some reason was not compelled by her motherly love.

Yes, that's how it works. Good things and bad things happen to people in both worlds.

Great, same page.

But in the determinist world [as some understand it] both the behaviors and our reactions to them are entirely fated, destined. In the determined world even when we do hold people responsible for what they do that is only because we were never able not to.

Yes, I understand that issue

Whereas, in the free will world, moral responsibility is not just on automatic pilot. We can, instead, think situations through to the best of our ability; and then, of our own volition, offer reasons why we construe some behaviors to be good and others bad. The part that "I" root subjectively/intersubjectively in dasein given a free will universe.

Sort of. A free will world would entail that we need not be guided by reason, kindness, morals, guilt, empathy or anything. People can construe away, but nothing is compelling any action. And people freely choose to come up with morals they don't believe in. Freely ignore reasoning. Freely choose to pretend they are being rational or moral, when really they have no idea or don't care.

It's a very odd world. They can choose to ignore their compassion, morals, reasoning or they can be compelled by them in a free will world. I am not quite sure what this option offers.

I do recognize it would be different. But we wouldn't just be free from outside influence, we would be free to ignore our own desires and compassion because these are causes also in a determinstic world.

I am not saying it is worse or better. I have no idea which world I would prefer. I don't like the sound of determinism, but I am not sure what people hope for - who don't know which is the case - when they think of a free will world.

Clear? I'm the last person to ask that of. Being "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments revolving around things like abortion, "better or worse" are no less rooted existentially in the particular lives that each of us live. What's better for some is worse for others.

I wasnt' asking for clarity as far as morals.

Yes, in a free will world different things will happen than in a determined world, since things are not determined. But it seems like you are saying it will be better for babies and I see no reason to believe that.

But I'm not saying that.

Great, wonderful. Success!! Sometimes it can be hard to find even small understanding especially when discussing topics that are enmeanshed in contradictory ways in our language like this one is.

OK. You are not saying that.

All I am noting is that for Jane in a free will world she is at least around to weigh in herself on all this. Though in fact, as noted above, she may well be cursing her mother up and down for bringing her into this shitty world.

Or she gets aborted and is one of the many aborted fetuses who get aborted in the free will world because her mother was free not to be influenced by cultural factors, rules, guilt, religious ideas, compassion for the baby or person it might become or any number of other things that might have prevented her in a determined world.

I just want to be clear. Because I think others may misunderstand you here since you present the options as fetus gets aborted in determinist world. In the free will world the negative possibility is that she grows up and suffers in her life.

Whereas the more complete picture is.

Some babies get aborted in both worlds, though perhaps different babies.
Some babies get to live in both worlds, though perhaps different ones.

Some adults suffer in both worlds
People are mean to other people in both worlds.

We have no idea which world have more abortions.
We have no idea which world would have better lives for people.

If you keep presenting THE example in your posts as the baby dies in a determinist universe
it may lead others to think that determinism leads to more abortions in your mind. And also, therefore it is bad.
Since there seems to be this emotional appeal to Jane never getting to talk.
And sure she won't
but other Janes in the free will world won't either. Since this isn't noted it sounds like you are making claims that here you clearly - thank you - said you are not.

When you say things like and Jane never gets to answer the questions. It sounds like this emotional appeal. See, in the determinist world, Jane never had a chance. In the free will world she had a chance. But that's cherry picking.

[Iwannaplato]

Why in the world does biggy always assume the desirable outcomes are in the world with free will? That's a very poisonous assumption to make in this conversation, with no justification.

See my last two posts. I went to lengths to ask about this in a number of ways. And he says he does not think this nor is he claiming this. I had the same reaction you have and you can see above that even in a post where he clearly states he doesn't think this, his examples seem to indicate he is saying that. It could simply be a matter of the main example is a real one from his life. So it becomes THE example, while he doesn't think through how this might appear to others.

[Flannel Jesus]

Why in the world does biggy always assume the desirable outcomes are in the world with free will? That's a very poisonous assumption to make in this conversation, with no justification.

See my last two posts. I went to lengths to ask about this in a number of ways. And he says he does not think this nor is he claiming this.

And yet consistently the examples he gives show this pattern. The bias is showing ...

[Iwannaplato]

Why in the world does biggy always assume the desirable outcomes are in the world with free will? That's a very poisonous assumption to make in this conversation, with no justification.

See my last two posts. I went to lengths to ask about this in a number of ways. And he says he does not think this nor is he claiming this.

And yet consistently the examples he gives show this pattern. The bias is showing ...

Yes, I notice this. It might be a bias. It could be biographical.

But at least if it is ever directly claimed to be the case, anyone can go and quote from his reponse above.

[Flannel Jesus]

Surely people are capable of using their free will to choose to rape, pillage, abort etc. It's a completely nonsensical wrench to throw into the conversation.

[Iwannaplato]

Surely people are capable of using their free will to choose to rape, pillage, abort etc. It's a completely nonsensical wrench to throw into the conversation.

Here are some quotes from his response to me...

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:08 pm
Yes, in a free will world different things will happen than in a determined world, since things are not determined. But it seems like you are saying it will be better for babies and I see no reason to believe that.

Him:

But I'm not saying that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:08 pm
Ask Svetlana whose mother in the determinist universe was compelled by motherly love to stop her boyfriend from raping Svetlana, but in the free will universe for some reason was not compelled by her motherly love.

Him:

Yes, that's how it works. Good things and bad things happen to people in both worlds.

I think that's clear. Perhaps an unconscious bias leads to his examples. And they are not false, but since they have a pattern it seems like a position is being taken.

But he has clearly denied that position. Perhaps his examples will be more nuanced from here on out.

[Agent Smith]

Temet nosce.

[BigMike]

Temet nosce.

As far as I know, the phrase "Temet Nosce" (which is the Latin version of "Know Thyself") is not inscribed at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, where the original Greek version "Gnothi Seauton" is said to have been inscribed.

The ancient Greek phrase "Gnothi Seauton" was one of the maxims inscribed on the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. The Temple of Apollo at Delphi was considered one of the most important religious sites in ancient Greece, and the inscription of "Gnothi Seauton" served as a reminder of the importance of self-knowledge in personal growth and spiritual development.

While "Temet Nosce" is not inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, the Latin phrase has been widely used in literature, philosophy, and popular culture, and it continues to be an important concept in personal development and self-improvement.

[Belinda]

Temet nosce.

As far as I know, the phrase "Temet Nosce" (which is the Latin version of "Know Thyself") is not inscribed at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, where the original Greek version "Gnothi Seauton" is said to have been inscribed.

The ancient Greek phrase "Gnothi Seauton" was one of the maxims inscribed on the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. The Temple of Apollo at Delphi was considered one of the most important religious sites in ancient Greece, and the inscription of "Gnothi Seauton" served as a reminder of the importance of self-knowledge in personal growth and spiritual development.

While "Temet Nosce" is not inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, the Latin phrase has been widely used in literature, philosophy, and popular culture, and it continues to be an important concept in personal development and self-improvement.

Temet nosce is the aim of psychoanalysis, which is deterministic in that the subject of psychoanalysis seeks to find historical causes of her behaviour.

[iambiguous]

Again, with BigMike, my main interest lies in grasping whether, given how he understands a "no free will determined universe", he either does or does not opt freely to post this. Instead, compelled or not, he produces yet another "general description intellectual/philosophical contraption" in which the explanation revolves around words defining and then defending yet more words still. And, apparently, his aim/"aim" here seems to be that of the objectivist: to convey to others that it is his explanation or they are wrong.

I have repeatedly stated that free will does not exist. I have repeatedly stated that I am a strict determinist. One obvious implication of this is that, given my understanding of the "no free will-determined universe," I am not choosing to post this on my own volition. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that.

Exactly! If the laws of matter are entirely applicable to human brains then everything that human beings think, feel, say and do is entirely ordinary. Wholly in sync with nature. The nature of the universe.

So, you posted the above because you were never able not to. And if others disagree with you in their posts, well, so what, it's not like they were ever able to agree with you. Nothing that encompasses the "human condition" is unfolding other than as it is fated or destined to given the laws of matter.

Only, come on, how do we go about demonstrating that in fact the human brain did not "somehow" acquire autonomy when biological life began to evolve on Earth. And, for all we know, it may well come back to God.

Regarding your assertions about my motivations or objectives, you are in error. Moreover, even if your claim were true, it would have no bearing on the issue of free will.

See, there you go again. You were never able not to post your argument above. And I was never able not to react to it other than as my material brain compelled me to. But I'm still in error, not you.

Although, yeah, it might be me here. Me unable to grasp your more reasonable point.

Unless of course he can offer us a definitive/demonstrable account of how lifeless matter did evolve into biological matter here on earth billions of years ago evolving further into conscious biological matter millions of years ago evolving into philosophers a few thousand years ago.

Using, I suppose, the scientific method to establish this?

This statement only serves to illustrate your complete confusion.

Right. "I am not choosing to post this [statement] of my own volition". And you were never able to not conclude that it reflects my complete confusion. But that still doesn't change the fact that I really am confused here and you're not. The "free will determinist".

Nonetheless, I will offer this comment:

Or: Nonetheless, my brain will now compel me to offer this comment:

The origin and nature of consciousness is a difficult and largely unresolved issue in neuroscience and philosophy. Many scientists and philosophers believe consciousness arose from a combination of genetic, evolutionary, and environmental factors, although there is no definitive answer.

Click.

Yet despite the fact that "the origin and nature of consciousness is a difficult and largely unresolved issue in neuroscience and philosophy" resulting in "no definitive answers", the conclusions you arrive at here are still the most rational manner in which to explain to Mary whether she is or is not morally responsible for aborting Jane?

Again, bringing your philosophical conjectures down to Earth.

But, no, you prefer to keep it all "theoretical":

One theory holds that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain's complex neural networks, which evolved through natural selection over millions of years. As the complexity of the brain increased, it developed the capacity to process and integrate vast amounts of sensory information from the environment, allowing organisms to adapt to changing conditions and survive in diverse ecological niches.

According to another theory, the evolution of language and social interaction played a crucial role in the emergence of consciousness. Self-awareness and introspection may have developed as a result of the ability to communicate and share information with others.

Still, other theories assert that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and that it exists at all levels of organization, from subatomic particles to human brains.

The precise mechanisms by which human consciousness arose are still the subject of ongoing scientific research and debate.

Again, all these theories. But are you acknowledging that all of them are derived from brains that were compelled by the laws of matter to "think them up" in the only possible reality? They could never have not been thought up? And since the thinking here is derived from a no free will wholly determined universe, they are all basically interchangeable. To nature. For all we know the human brain may not even be capable to grasping the ontological explanation for the existence of existence itself.

Regardless of the situation, the fact that the universe is governed by the conservation laws of physics remains unchanged.

Okay, how might this be explained as applicable to Mary groping about for a way to deal with her unwanted pregnancy?