The material universe certainly has no remit to care about anything.
It's not wet, either, but I'm pretty sure my bath is.
The concept of likes and dislikes arise from conscious awareness for which we have no material definition or explanation.
No, our experience of likes and dislikes arise from conscious awareness, but the likes and dislikes themselves are characterisations of subconscious patterns of brain activity. You might not have a definition or an explanation, but others do.
Before you can get to the propagation of genes or the concept of survival - there is a monumental task of creating living cells capable of reproduction, followed by the organisation of these cells to facilitate sexual reproduction.
An billions upon billions of years for dozens of planets around billions of stars in trillions of galaxies for that sequence to have happened once in order for you to misunderstand it collossally.
Here is an interesting short video of a top eye surgeon who was an atheist prior to contemplating the amazing complexity of the human eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43pQSZ4tVbM
An adequate demonstration that technical ability and wisdom are not necessarily linked.
The demonstration lies in the fact that we are able to post consciously verified conclusions or opinions.
That 'consciousness' is developed in response to prior stimuli. Your 'conscious response' is prompted by the content of the argument being made to you. You're exercising will, yes, but there's nothing in what you post to suggest that it's free of those prior influences. What about your argument is somehow independent of what went before?
Without such ability to verify, the output of our brains would be entirely defined by material reactions which are beyond our conscious control.
Why would that ability to verify - correctly or incorrectly - not be a response to prior events? Children aren't born with that capacity, they learn it over time. It's the result of experience, it's a learnt behaviour, it's a set of rules built into the developing psyche as a response to exposure to arguments. It's an effect of prior events.
Our ability to verify the output of our thoughts can have no material explanation, because in the materialistic scenario there can be no mechanism for conscious verification if our conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already occurred.
Why? You have a harder time showing that conscious verification is the result of something that doesn't interact with the brain in any demonstrable way, or with anything else, yet somehow manifests physical evidence. You make an argument, but you want to suggest that somehow emerges spontaneously from nowhere, independent of what came before, yet somehow intrinsically linked to what went before it in terms of the immediate prompt and the arguers life experience? You want it resulting and responding to criteria, but also somehow divorced from them and independent - you are ascribing mutually exclusive traits to the phenomenon, and then trying to utilise your personal incredulity as evidence that it must be so.
the demonstration which you suggest is impossible because we cannot rewind time, but we all have the demonstrable freedom to consciously contemplate and draw verifiable conclusions from the reality we perceive.
Yes, we can all ponder the past, and have thoughts that result from that past. How is that free of the past?
O.