Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on June 24, 2020, 07:42:30 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Most often, people of science seem to regard mechanisms as causes and are satisfied explaining processes and mechanisms rather than identify causes behind the processes.
It is like explaining the existence of a car only through its mechanisms and ignoring its cause and the purpose for which it is designed.
IMO, while we may not be able to see or identify directly the causes behind Life, evolution and the universe.....it is nevertheless necessary that we realize its importance and try to at least, speculate on its probable nature.
Here is an article about cosmopsychism....
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00371/full
***********
"The strength of the novel cosmopsychist paradigm presented here lies in the bridging of the explanatory gap the conventional materialist doctrine struggles with. This is achieved by proposing a comprehensible causal mechanism for the formation of phenomenal states that is deeply rooted in the foundations of the universe.
More specifically, the sort of cosmopsychism we advocate brings a new perspective into play, according to which the structural, functional, and organizational characteristics of the NCC (neural correlates of consciousness) are indicative of the brain’s interaction with and modulation of a UFC (ubiquitous field of consciousness).
From this point of view, consciousness may be causally efficacious and turn out to be the ultimate intrinsic force underlying the dynamic transformations described by physics, thus laying the foundations for a scientifically informed idealist worldview."
***********
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Scientists, when conducting science, are constrained by the fact that the enterprise of science works from evidence, so the farther you go from the observable phenomenon, the less reliable your work is. Therefore, science is typically restricted to investigating immediate causes.
That said, it's also easy to constrain the idea of 'scientists' and 'science' to the so-called harder sciences of physics, chemistry, geology and the like, but social scientists like sociologists, archaeologists, political scientists and economists put huge amounts of work into examining the more variable and more subtle influences of human behaviour and cultural pressures.
And, lastly, there is an implication in what you've written that there IS a 'cause' behind life and evolution, and not merely a series of incremental steps which ended up producing life but which wasn't at any point an intention.
As to the particulars of the article you've posted, the attempt to hijack sciency-sounding language with the 'ubiquitous field of consciousness' initialism is fine, so long as there is any evidence whatsoever to support the claim - I don't see any in the article.
Then you have the paradox of attempting to use consciousness to explain life when we only have any evidence for consciousness as a consequence of life - again, there'd need to be some demonstration of consciousness independent of something living in order to make the conjecture anything more than deepity.
O.
-
Scientists, when conducting science, are constrained by the fact that the enterprise of science works from evidence, so the farther you go from the observable phenomenon, the less reliable your work is. Therefore, science is typically restricted to investigating immediate causes.
That said, it's also easy to constrain the idea of 'scientists' and 'science' to the so-called harder sciences of physics, chemistry, geology and the like, but social scientists like sociologists, archaeologists, political scientists and economists put huge amounts of work into examining the more variable and more subtle influences of human behaviour and cultural pressures.
And, lastly, there is an implication in what you've written that there IS a 'cause' behind life and evolution, and not merely a series of incremental steps which ended up producing life but which wasn't at any point an intention.
As to the particulars of the article you've posted, the attempt to hijack sciency-sounding language with the 'ubiquitous field of consciousness' initialism is fine, so long as there is any evidence whatsoever to support the claim - I don't see any in the article.
Then you have the paradox of attempting to use consciousness to explain life when we only have any evidence for consciousness as a consequence of life - again, there'd need to be some demonstration of consciousness independent of something living in order to make the conjecture anything more than deepity.
O.
As I have said before, 'evidence' is not just about something that you can obviously see or feel. Many times it depends on ones perception and perspective.
If the perspective is right, the evidence becomes immediately apparent. Otherwise it remains hidden from that person just as gravity was 'hidden' from billions of people before Newton.
-
As I have said before, 'evidence' is not just about something that you can obviously see or feel. Many times it depends on ones perception and perspective.
If the perspective is right, the evidence becomes immediately apparent. Otherwise it remains hidden from that person just as gravity was 'hidden' from billions of people before Newton.
Perception is subjective and you can't derive objective truth from subjective experience. If two people look at the same dress and one sees it as blue and the other sees it as purple, that illustrates that perception is all in the mind and we cannot say anything objective about the colour of the dress. So, when scientists talk about evidence being objective, this reflects the need to excise merely personal interpretations from any description of fundamental reality.
-
Perception is subjective and you can't derive objective truth from subjective experience. If two people look at the same dress and one sees it as blue and the other sees it as purple, that illustrates that perception is all in the mind and we cannot say anything objective about the colour of the dress. So, when scientists talk about evidence being objective, this reflects the need to excise merely personal interpretations from any description of fundamental reality.
When Newton saw the apple fall (if this is true!) he thought of something pulling the apple towards the earth....and came up with gravity. Falling fruits is something billions of people have seen and experienced for centuries. What Newton had was a perception change.
Evidence for gravity was always there but no one saw it the way Newton saw it. This is what I mean by perception and perspective.
There is evidence all around us for lots of things but we need to notice it and make the connection. That is what transforms a normal experience or observation into 'evidence'.
Similarly, there is lot of evidence for Consciousness being fundamental....we just need to notice it and make the connection.
-
As I have said before, 'evidence' is not just about something that you can obviously see or feel. Many times it depends on ones perception and perspective.
Evidence is many things - a survey of opinions can be evidence. What evidence needs to be, though, is something on which an opinion can be formed, not just an opinion itself. You appear to want to elevate 'but I feel' to the same standing as a conclusion from the analysis of independent sources.
If the perspective is right, the evidence becomes immediately apparent.
No, if the conclusion relies on presupposition then the conclusion is unreliable. The evidence merely is; if you can deduce a conclusion from the evidence without preconception then that's a moderately reliable conclusion (which you then put out to a wider community to have it verified for bias and the like because none of us are perfect). If you need to qualify your approach with 'you have to already have an inclination towards the conclusion' then your conclusion is not a conclusion, you're just succumbing to confirmation bias.
Otherwise it remains hidden from that person just as gravity was 'hidden' from billions of people before Newton.
Gravity was not 'hidden' before Newton, people didn't go flying off the planet. As it was, Newton's laws of gravitation weren't correct - he didn't know that, he only had exposure to situations where they were a close enough approximation that his equations were within the margins of tolerance of the measuring equipment available, but even he was aware that there were issues with his depiction.
IMportantly, though, the reason his work stood up is because despite his profoundly religious sentiments, he didn't go in to the investigation with the presupposition 'God does it'. He looked at the available phenomena, measured them, considered the implications and deduced a conclusion from the available, independent measurements and concepts.
O.
-
When Newton saw the apple fall (if this is true!) he thought of something pulling the apple towards the earth....and came up with gravity. Falling fruits is something billions of people have seen and experienced for centuries. What Newton had was a perception change.
Evidence for gravity was always there but no one saw it the way Newton saw it. This is what I mean by perception and perspective.
There is evidence all around us for lots of things but we need to notice it and make the connection. That is what transforms a normal experience or observation into 'evidence'.
Similarly, there is lot of evidence for Consciousness being fundamental....we just need to notice it and make the connection.
Newton's chief insight was to see that the same force that pulled an apple towards the Earth was responsible for keeping the planets on their paths through space. What made him a great scientist was that he was then able to formulate a mathematical model based on that insight which could explain known phenomena, simplify the existing model (Kepler's) and make predictions.
-
Hi all...
That is the problem with microscopic thinking. It becomes all about details and dissection and segregation....missing the overall point all together.
I am not discussing the details of gravitational law or Newton. I am discussing how Consciousness could be fundamental.
In this connection the issue of evidence came up....and I am of the view that just as it happened with gravity....there could be many more fundamental phenomena that are going unnoticed in spite of evidence being available all around.
That's all it is about.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I am not discussing the details of gravitational law or Newton. I am discussing how Consciousness could be fundamental.
But you're not giving anyone any reasons to think that it might be the case. Every single instance of consciousness that we're aware of comes out of the existence of a complex neurological system - we don't see consciousness independent of that, we don't see consciousness manifesting in any other situations, and therefore there's absolutely no basis for thinking that consciousness is something more than an emergent property of neurology.
In this connection the issue of evidence came up....and I am of the view that just as it happened with gravity....there could be many more fundamental phenomena that are going unnoticed in spite of evidence being available all around.
It's possible, yes, but until something is discovered that changes it from a hypothetical future maybe to and actual observation then your idea has exactly as much merit as 'consciousness is a gift from the invisible pink unicorn'.
O.
-
Hi all...
That is the problem with microscopic thinking. It becomes all about details and dissection and segregation....missing the overall point all together.
I am not discussing the details of gravitational law or Newton. I am discussing how Consciousness could be fundamental.
In this connection the issue of evidence came up....and I am of the view that just as it happened with gravity....there could be many more fundamental phenomena that are going unnoticed in spite of evidence being available all around.
That's all it is about.
Cheers.
Sriram
If there was evidence all around for these unnoticed fundamental phenomena, we'd notice them.
You've convinced yourself that certain things exist and the reason that nobody can find evidence for them is that they are somehow searching in the wrong way.
Can you entertain the possibility that, actually, we are searching in the right way and these things you want to exist do not exist?
-
If there was evidence all around for these unnoticed fundamental phenomena, we'd notice them.
You've convinced yourself that certain things exist and the reason that nobody can find evidence for them is that they are somehow searching in the wrong way.
Can you entertain the possibility that, actually, we are searching in the right way and these things you want to exist do not exist?
I very much doubt it, Jeremy, although I would love to be proved wrong. Sriram seems to have such a myopic view of things that he finds it hard to entertain anything which conflicts with his own ideas.
-
The fundamental evidence which seems to be ignored or taken for granted is the fact that we are able to think.
What is a thought?
What is the source of your thought?
How are your thoughts defined?
Are your thoughts capable of being manipulated - if so what is the source of manipulation?
What comprises "you"
Are you a biologically controlled machine - or are "you" in control of a biological machine?
-
The fundamental evidence which seems to be ignored or taken for granted is the fact that we are able to think.
I'm pretty sure no-one has 'overlooked' thought as evidence of consciousness - in order to give credence to Sriram's ideas, though, we'd need to see evidence of thought or consciousness divorced from physical neurology, and that's not been reported to the best of my knowledge.
What is a thought?
Pattern of electric-chemical activity operating in a neurological framework under hormonal variables.
What is the source of your thought?
Neurological stimuli in the form of sensory inputs and feedback mechanisms within the neurological architecture.
How are your thoughts defined?
See above.
Are your thoughts capable of being manipulated - if so what is the source of manipulation?
Directly, by all sorts of bioelectric effects, and indirectly by manipulation of the various phenomena that the sensory organs convert into neurological stimuli.
What comprises "you"
The overall pattern of brain activity.
Are you a biologically controlled machine - or are "you" in control of a biological machine?
We are biologically controlled machines.
O.
-
That is the problem with microscopic thinking. It becomes all about details and dissection and segregation....missing the overall point all together.
Yes, if you never get to the detail, you can make up any shit you want and nobody can falsify it.
In this connection the issue of evidence came up....and I am of the view that just as it happened with gravity....there could be many more fundamental phenomena that are going unnoticed in spite of evidence being available all around.
Evidence, in the scientific sense, is observations that either confirm or falsify the predictions of a hypothesis. Strictly, in the scientific sense, there was no evidence for Newton's law of gravity until he formulated it and it made predictions (and retrodictions).
The world is the way it is, and identifying patterns in it can lead to new hypotheses, but there is no evidence for them until and unless they are formulated in enough detail to make predictions.
-
The fundamental evidence which seems to be ignored or taken for granted is the fact that we are able to think.
What is a thought?
What is the source of your thought?
How are your thoughts defined?
Are your thoughts capable of being manipulated - if so what is the source of manipulation?
What comprises "you"
Are you a biologically controlled machine - or are "you" in control of a biological machine?
We've covered this to death on the SfG thread. Thinking is not some inexplicable magic phenomenon. Thoughts happen, often, we can see that they have some provenance. 'You' and your biological machinery are one and the same thing. There is not something separate needed to control how your brain functions; what control we exert is the functioning of our brains. We don't have some extra layer of functioning to control the functioning.
-
Always good, from my favourite campus too, with or without hallucinations :)
https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality#t-1008791/
-
...
In this connection the issue of evidence came up....and I am of the view that just as it happened with gravity....there could be many more fundamental phenomena that are going unnoticed in spite of evidence being available all around.
Yes, actually you are absolutely right, there could be ...
That's all it is about.
You mean none of the work required, to even discuss such phenomena meaningfully, has been done.
-
I'm pretty sure no-one has 'overlooked' thought as evidence of consciousness - in order to give credence to Sriram's ideas, though, we'd need to see evidence of thought or consciousness divorced from physical neurology, and that's not been reported to the best of my knowledge.
Pattern of electric-chemical activity operating in a neurological framework under hormonal variables.
Such patterns are certainly seen to correlate with conscious thought activity, but alone, they do not explain how such activity can define the conscious thought we all experience.
Neurological stimuli in the form of sensory inputs and feedback mechanisms within the neurological architecture.
Use of such technical jargon comes nowhere near to explaining the source of conscious thought.
Directly, by all sorts of bioelectric effects, and indirectly by manipulation of the various phenomena that the sensory organs convert into neurological stimuli.
Which all boils down to physically defined reactions in material elements - so no definable source of manipulation - just the end results of physically defined cause and effect reactions.
The overall pattern of brain activity.
which reduces whatever comprises "you" to be just the inevitable unavoidable end result of physical reactions
We are biologically controlled machines.
One day I sincerely hope and pray you will come to realise what comprises the real "you".
-
Use of such technical jargon comes nowhere near to explaining the source of conscious thought.
It does a great deal better than baseless superstition and self-contradictory magic. ::)
-
We've covered this to death on the SfG thread. Thinking is not some inexplicable magic phenomenon. Thoughts happen, often, we can see that they have some provenance. 'You' and your biological machinery are one and the same thing. There is not something separate needed to control how your brain functions; what control we exert is the functioning of our brains. We don't have some extra layer of functioning to control the functioning.
But the fact remains that we have the ability to manipulate our thought processes. Without such manipulative ability, our thoughts would just be inevitable reactions with no means to contemplate and make logical deductions. You may persist in sticking to your claim that all thoughts are just inevitable reaction, but your ability to consciously make such a claim is evidence that the claim is patently wrong.
The truth is that "you" are the source of your thought manipulation, and as such "you" are able to choose your own destiny. And "you" can be held to account for the consequences of all your thoughts.
-
But the fact remains that we have the ability to manipulate our thought processes. Without such manipulative ability, our thoughts would just be inevitable reactions with no means to contemplate and make logical deductions. You may persist in sticking to your claim that all thoughts are just inevitable reaction, but your ability to consciously make such a claim is evidence that the claim is patently wrong.
The truth is that "you" are the source of your thought manipulation, and as such "you" are able to choose your own destiny. And "you" can be held to account for the consequences of all your thoughts.
There is no sense in which we can 'manipulate' our thoughts in the sense such there is a distinct 'me' somehow separate from the thoughts that 'I' have. I cannot choose which thoughts should come to mind, I cannot manipulate them in any fundamental way other than by means of other thought processes. To 'choose' which thought to think next would itself be a thought process. Do you not get this ?
-
We've covered this to death on the SfG thread. Thinking is not some inexplicable magic phenomenon. Thoughts happen, often, we can see that they have some provenance. 'You' and your biological machinery are one and the same thing.
Isn't 'you' an emergent phenomenon? Can an emergent phenomenon be said to be one and the same thing as that from which it emerges?
-
But the fact remains that we have the ability to manipulate our thought processes.
That doesn't even make sense.
Without such manipulative ability, our thoughts would just be inevitable reactions...
Appeal to consequences fallacy.
...with no means to contemplate and make logical deductions.
Non-sequitur.
You may persist in sticking to your claim that all thoughts are just inevitable reaction, but your ability to consciously make such a claim is evidence that the claim is patently wrong.
Considering how often you've been asked to justify this silly assertion and how often you've failed to do so, this looks a lot like a barefaced lie.
The truth is that "you" are the source of your thought manipulation, and as such "you" are able to choose your own destiny. And "you" can be held to account for the consequences of all your thoughts.
Foot-stamping.
Are you just going to ignore all the answers you've already had and just repeat your endless nonsensical drivel on this thread now? Your mindless, thought-free repetition really isn't a good advert for your brand of superstition, you do know that, yes?
-
There is no sense in which we can 'manipulate' our thoughts in the sense such there is a distinct 'me' somehow separate from the thoughts that 'I' have. I cannot choose which thoughts should come to mind, I cannot manipulate them in any fundamental way other than by means of other thought processes. To 'choose' which thought to think next would itself be a thought process. Do you not get this ?
Of course I can choose what to think.
It is what I do.
-
Of course I can choose what to think.
It is what I do.
Infinite regress again.
-
Of course I can choose what to think.
It is what I do.
And you do that, how? By thinking about what you want to think? How do you do that? By thinking about what you want to think about what you want to think? How do you do that?
-
And you do that, how? By thinking about what you want to think? How do you do that? By thinking about what you want to think about what you want to think? How do you do that?
I just do it.
-
I just do it.
Idiotic
-
I just do it.
So, once again, the most simplistic, thought-free, superficial, first impression. No hint of rational analysis.
-
Of course I can choose what to think.
It is what I do.
Yes, but, choosing what to think is itself, a thought process. Can you really not understand this ?
-
Such patterns are certainly seen to correlate with conscious thought activity, but alone, they do not explain how such activity can define the conscious thought we all experience.Use of such technical jargon comes nowhere near to explaining the source of conscious thought.Which all boils down to physically defined reactions in material elements - so no definable source of manipulation - just the end results of physically defined cause and effect reactions.which reduces whatever comprises "you" to be just the inevitable unavoidable end result of physical reactionsOne day I sincerely hope and pray you will come to realise what comprises the real "you".
It's all you Alan, your biological brain..
....how?
..........it just does it!
-
I just do it.
Not very well.
-
It's all you Alan, your biological brain..
....how?
..........it just does it!
Not "it" that does it - "I" do it.
Are you not aware of the fundamental difference between "it" and "I" ?
-
So, once again, the most simplistic, thought-free, superficial, first impression. No hint of rational analysis.
Do you need rational analysis to know what you are capable of doing?
Can rational analysis take away your God given freedom?
-
Do you need rational analysis to know what you are capable of doing?
Can rational analysis take away your God given freedom?
Idiotic illogical begging the question.
-
But the fact remains that we have the ability to manipulate our thought processes. Without such manipulative ability, our thoughts would just be inevitable reactions with no means to contemplate and make logical deductions. You may persist in sticking to your claim that all thoughts are just inevitable reaction, but your ability to consciously make such a claim is evidence that the claim is patently wrong.
You cannot 'manipulate' a thought, this doesn't make any sense. Describe some way in which you manipulated a thought such that it happened differently as a result of your manipulation. Can you make a thought go backwards instead of forwards ? No, you cannot. Can you think two thoughts at the same time ? No, you cannot. Can you schedule a good idea to occur to you at 3pm tomorrow afternoon ? Can you think a thought in a language you don't know ? Can you choose a route through cortex for a thought to pass through ? can you unrealise something you have just realised ? Can you choose to forget something on demand ? Can you alter the speed at which a thought happens. No, we can do none of these things; we cannot exert any primary fundamental control over the way that thoughts flow through a mind. The way thoughts flow in a mind is entirely consistent with the neurological functioning of a biological brain operating within and bounded by the principle of cause and effect.
-
Not "it" that does it - "I" do it.
Are you not aware of the fundamental difference between "it" and "I" ?
Your brain, produces your conciousness, you.
How?
...it just does it.
If it's a good enough explanation for you to use then it's good enough for me.
No need now to continue with your , science hadn't yet produced a definition of conciousness, you have solved all of that with...just does it!
-
You cannot 'manipulate' a thought, this doesn't make any sense. Describe some way in which you manipulated a thought such that it happened differently as a result of your manipulation. Can you make a thought go backwards instead of forwards ? No, you cannot. Can you think two thoughts at the same time ? No, you cannot. Can you schedule a good idea to occur to you at 3pm tomorrow afternoon ? Can you think a thought in a language you don't know ? Can you choose a route through cortex for a thought to pass through ? can you unrealise something you have just realised ? Can you choose to forget something on demand ? Can you alter the speed at which a thought happens. No, we can do none of these things; we cannot exert any primary fundamental control over the way that thoughts flow through a mind. The way thoughts flow in a mind is entirely consistent with the neurological functioning of a biological brain operating within and bounded by the principle of cause and effect.
What is at the heart of your thinking?
German philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand offers much insight into what motivates people:
1. We can be motivated by the subjectively satisfying, that is, by what is pleasing to us as individuals, without consideration of what objectively fulfils our nature or is important in itself.
2. We can be motivated by the objective good for persons, that is, by what objectively fulfils the needs, abilities, appetites, and desires that we have insofar as we have human nature.
3. We can be motivated by values or what is important in itself, that is, by what calls for a certain response as due to it, without reference to our own fulfilment or satisfaction.
The Heart
In addition to the traditionally-distinguished intellect and will, Hildebrand argues in The Heart that some feelings or affective acts are properly personal acts. A personal or spiritual act is one that is not just caused in us, but is motivated by intentional awareness of its object. While Hildebrand grants that many feelings are purely bodily acts, which are caused by physiological or other physical events, he also argues that many feelings are intentional (that is, object-directed) acts.These include feelings of love, reverence, gratitude, disgust, hatred, and pride. Many such affective acts are responses to values; some values call for feelings as their proper response. It is a sign that some feelings are properly speaking personal or spiritual that they are meaningful, motivated responses to values. A person is not fully virtuous until he or she gives valuable goods their proper affective response; to merely perform morally right acts or hold true beliefs is not sufficient for full virtue, or for giving objects and persons all that is due to them. Feelings must be received as a gift, and cannot be forced by our own volitions, but we can encourage the right feelings to arise by voluntarily sanctioning them and by voluntarily disavowing undue feelings. As in his discussion of values, Hildebrand writes a lot about distinguishing kinds of feelings, and about analyzing their place in the moral life, as well as in the Christian life--something he emphasizes by a careful analysis of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
(extracted from Wiki article)
-
What is at the heart of your thinking?
German philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand offers much insight into what motivates people:
1. We can be motivated by the subjectively satisfying, that is, by what is pleasing to us as individuals, without consideration of what objectively fulfils our nature or is important in itself.
2. We can be motivated by the objective good for persons, that is, by what objectively fulfils the needs, abilities, appetites, and desires that we have insofar as we have human nature.
3. We can be motivated by values or what is important in itself, that is, by what calls for a certain response as due to it, without reference to our own fulfilment or satisfaction.
The Heart
In addition to the traditionally-distinguished intellect and will, Hildebrand argues in The Heart that some feelings or affective acts are properly personal acts. A personal or spiritual act is one that is not just caused in us, but is motivated by intentional awareness of its object. While Hildebrand grants that many feelings are purely bodily acts, which are caused by physiological or other physical events, he also argues that many feelings are intentional (that is, object-directed) acts.These include feelings of love, reverence, gratitude, disgust, hatred, and pride. Many such affective acts are responses to values; some values call for feelings as their proper response. It is a sign that some feelings are properly speaking personal or spiritual that they are meaningful, motivated responses to values. A person is not fully virtuous until he or she gives valuable goods their proper affective response; to merely perform morally right acts or hold true beliefs is not sufficient for full virtue, or for giving objects and persons all that is due to them. Feelings must be received as a gift, and cannot be forced by our own volitions, but we can encourage the right feelings to arise by voluntarily sanctioning them and by voluntarily disavowing undue feelings. As in his discussion of values, Hildebrand writes a lot about distinguishing kinds of feelings, and about analyzing their place in the moral life, as well as in the Christian life--something he emphasizes by a careful analysis of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
(extracted from Wiki article)
None of which addresses the point, which is that we cannot manipulate our fundamental brain function; and this not merely because it is difficult or challenging or requires too much oxygen and glucose, we cannot do this because it is an irrational proposition to even claim. For me to alter the way my brain functions would require some sort of third party intervention, perhaps a surgical intervention as might happen with epileptic patients for instance. But for me to alter my own brain function merely by use of my own brain function, willpower, say, is obviously circular. The same applies to the claim that you can choose which thoughts to think - the act of choosing a thought is itself a thought process. This whole way of understanding mind function is flawed by its inherent circularity.
-
None of which addresses the point, which is that we cannot manipulate our fundamental brain function; and this not merely because it is difficult or challenging or requires too much oxygen and glucose, we cannot do this because it is an irrational proposition to even claim. For me to alter the way my brain functions would require some sort of third party intervention, perhaps a surgical intervention as might happen with epileptic patients for instance. But for me to alter my own brain function merely by use of my own brain function, willpower, say, is obviously circular. The same applies to the claim that you can choose which thoughts to think - the act of choosing a thought is itself a thought process. This whole way of understanding mind function is flawed by its inherent circularity.
Of course, we do change our thoughts, emotions and behavior on a regular basis. this is what learning and training is all about. If you learn meditations you can learn to change your moods and reactions willfully.
You seem to be stuck with the 'predetermined based on natural laws' view. Predetermination is obviously just a platform, preset stage...like a computer game. But we are free to play as we wish and win or lose.
.
-
Of course, we do change our thoughts, emotions and behavior on a regular basis. this is what learning and training is all about. If you learn meditations you can learn to change your moods and reactions willfully.
You seem to be stuck with the 'predetermined based on natural laws' view. Predetermination is obviously just a platform, preset stage...like a computer game. But we are free to play as we wish and win or lose.
.
Learning and training are all within the regular flow of mind function; they do not constitute a fundamental altering of the way your mind works. If you want to learn something new, you can; but you cannot want to learn something new if you don't want to. The buck stops there.
-
Learning and training are all within the regular flow of mind function; they do not constitute a fundamental altering of the way your mind works. If you want to learn something new, you can; but you cannot want to learn something new if you don't want to. The buck stops there.
What you mean is that....we are not free to play some other game if we want. That is true. We are stuck with whatever game is going on and whatever processes or mechanisms or values that are a part of the game.
But within the game that we are a part of, we have the choice to do things one way or the other. It is not predetermined in an absolute sense.
-
Do you need rational analysis to know what you are capable of doing?
It's not about what, it's about how. We all 'just do' all sorts of things but if you're interested in what is actually going on, that requires some reasoning and evidence.
Can rational analysis take away your God given freedom?
You can't take away something that was never there in the first place. ::)
-
Of course I can choose what to think.
It is what I do.
Basically if I am my brain then you are quite correct.
Of course my brain can *choose what to think. It is what my brain does.
* definition of choice - an act of choosing between two or more possibilities. Note there is no mention on how a choice is made.
-
Not "it" that does it - "I" do it.
Are you not aware of the fundamental difference between "it" and "I" ?
There is no reason to think that there is a 'you'. If so, where is it located and how does it interact with your brain? I suggest that it is much more sensible to describe the 'you' as a projection emanating from the workings of the brain.
-
Do you need rational analysis to know what you are capable of doing?
Can rational analysis take away your God given freedom?
Rational analysis and evidence based research shows that the brain is capable of doing all sorts of things whether we are conscious of them or not. Can it take away our God given freedom? 'God given' presumes that our freedom comes from some sort of god, a conjecture that has no evidence and is therefore not pertinent to the basic question. As to whether rational analysis takes away our freedom. I would suggest that far from taking away our freedom, it is a quality of thinking which is capable of enhancing such abilities.
-
There is no reason to think that there is a 'you'. If so, where is it located and how does it interact with your brain? I suggest that it is much more sensible to describe the 'you' as a projection emanating from the workings of the brain.
It is an emergent property of the brain. Because it doesn't seem to reside anywhere is just a problem for materialism which unsuccessfully tries to harness the word illusion while wanting it to be simultaneously a property of the brain.
-
There is no reason to think that there is a 'you'. If so, where is it located and how does it interact with your brain? I suggest that it is much more sensible to describe the 'you' as a projection emanating from the workings of the brain.
You imply that "I" am something emerging from physical reactions of material elements.
Nothing actually "emerges" from physical reactions.
The only thing a reaction produces is a reaction - nothing else.
So am I the end result of lots of reactions?
But the end result of reactions can only be another reaction.
When, as an outside observer, we consider the concept of "emergence" coming from complex reactions, the concept appears in our perception as a single entity - such as a pattern or a function. But outside our perception there is no single entity - just lots of individual interactions. So the idea of a single entity of perception (ie, you) emerging from lots of complex reactions does not make any sense to me.
-
You imply that "I" am something emerging from physical reactions of material elements.
Nothing actually "emerges" from physical reactions.
The only thing a reaction produces is a reaction - nothing else.
So am I the end result of lots of reactions?
But the end result of reactions can only be another reaction.
When, as an outside observer, we consider the concept of "emergence" coming from complex reactions, the concept appears in our perception as a single entity - such as a pattern or a function. But outside our perception there is no single entity - just lots of individual interactions. So the idea of a single entity of perception (ie, you) emerging from lots of complex reactions does not make any sense to me.
That is because, Alan, you are mired in fallacious thinking yourself (in this case the fallacies of 'consequences' and 'composition' are fairly obvious)._
-
You imply that "I" am something emerging from physical reactions of material elements.
Nothing actually "emerges" from physical reactions.
The only thing a reaction produces is a reaction - nothing else.
So am I the end result of lots of reactions?
But the end result of reactions can only be another reaction.
When, as an outside observer, we consider the concept of "emergence" coming from complex reactions, the concept appears in our perception as a single entity - such as a pattern or a function. But outside our perception there is no single entity - just lots of individual interactions. So the idea of a single entity of perception (ie, you) emerging from lots of complex reactions does not make any sense to me.
Funny that, what doesn't make any sense to me is your version of reality...
I.e. a soul, which exists in a place, not inside this spacetime manifold, also not in 'heaven' (at least whilst your physical body is alive). Said 'place' is also seemingly devoid of any concept of time.
This soul interacts, from its timeless realm, with spacetime, specifically only with one body. It only 'visits' when you are concious and somehow is able to, in real time, interpret your physical brain patterns, think/make decisions and (using a method, yet to be described) tells your brain what to do based on aforementioned "thinking".
I could go on and I have so many questions but if you could just confirm firstly if any of the above is incorrect....if so, please explain?
-
So am I the end result of lots of reactions?
Yes, that is what reason and evidence tells us.
But the end result of reactions can only be another reaction.
When, as an outside observer, we consider the concept of "emergence" coming from complex reactions, the concept appears in our perception as a single entity - such as a pattern or a function. But outside our perception there is no single entity - just lots of individual interactions. So the idea of a single entity of perception (ie, you) emerging from lots of complex reactions does not make any sense to me.
Personal incredulity again.... ::)
-
You imply that "I" am something emerging from physical reactions of material elements.
Nothing actually "emerges" from physical reactions.
The only thing a reaction produces is a reaction - nothing else.
So am I the end result of lots of reactions?
But the end result of reactions can only be another reaction.
When, as an outside observer, we consider the concept of "emergence" coming from complex reactions, the concept appears in our perception as a single entity - such as a pattern or a function. But outside our perception there is no single entity - just lots of individual interactions. So the idea of a single entity of perception (ie, you) emerging from lots of complex reactions does not make any sense to me.
As the processes of the brain are a result of physical reactions and interactions, possibly as a result of the brain's EM field generating neuron firing whilst being generated by neuron firing(a self referencing loop), I see no reason to think that the 'I' isn't basically a product of the brain. Firstly the 'I' seems clearly local to each individual person, secondly it can change drastically when the brain is damaged, thirdly it can be demonstrated that some people have multiple 'I's, fourthly, it disappears completely with brain death. This suggests clearly that the 'I' emanates from the brain. Also, as one would expect, the 'I' doesn't remain constant throughout life. It can change greatly over time such that, for instance, as I look at old photographs of myself, I see the person depicted as a different person to the 'I' of today.
I would have said that perception is the result of a data stream(normally from our senses or memory) being interpreted by the brain to give understanding and interpretation. I would suggest that recent experimental data suggests that the co-ordination or synchronization of nerve firing seems to be linked to an increase in perception and awareness. In other words, lots of reactions seem to come/link together to influence perception.
What have you actually offered? No answers to my questions at all. "Where is the 'I' located and how does it interact with your brain?
On what grounds should I be convinced by your ideas of the 'I' when you present no arguments, no evidence and ignore questions that are put to you?
-
You imply that "I" am something emerging from physical reactions of material elements.
Nothing actually "emerges" from physical reactions.
The only thing a reaction produces is a reaction - nothing else.
So am I the end result of lots of reactions?
But the end result of reactions can only be another reaction.
When, as an outside observer, we consider the concept of "emergence" coming from complex reactions, the concept appears in our perception as a single entity - such as a pattern or a function. But outside our perception there is no single entity - just lots of individual interactions. So the idea of a single entity of perception (ie, you) emerging from lots of complex reactions does not make any sense to me.
The aggregation and synthesis of multiple organs and tissue structures within a skin boundary into a singular organism operating as a unit is what brains do. It is why they evolved. Like a conductor it orchestrates all the parts into a wonderful inter-functioning collaborating synthesis. No soul required, your brain does all that stuff; learn to appreciate it, it is the end product of 500 million years of gradualistic refinement through biological evolution. It operates so smoothly you could almost imagine it works by magic. But it don't.
-
That is because, Alan, you are mired in fallacious thinking yourself (in this case the fallacies of 'consequences' and 'composition' are fairly obvious)._
Like a conductor it orchestrates all the parts into a wonderful inter-functioning collaborating synthesis.
[/quote]
What units are we using to measure wonder?
-
What units are we using to measure wonder?
Well it's obviously the Der scale!
Most people only use the singular in common parlance, i.e "wonder" but you can have twoders, threeders etc.
;)
-
Well it's obviously the Der scale!
Most people only use the singular in common parlance, i.e "wonder" but you can have twoders, threeders etc.
;)
;D The twoders....Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward the something, Mary and Elizabeth.
-
I wondered whether I should have included Lady Jane Gray but I understand she's a unit of ionising radiation dose.
-
I wondered whether I should have included Lady Jane Gray but I understand she's a unit of ionising radiation dose.
Half life of 4.5 days
-
Half life of 4.5 days
;D keep 'em coming.
-
Half life of 4.5 days
She came from a nuclear family.
-
I wondered whether I should have included Lady Jane Gray but I understand she's a unit of ionising radiation dose.
Not my cup of tea.
-
Such patterns are certainly seen to correlate with conscious thought activity, but alone, they do not explain how such activity can define the conscious thought we all experience.
Why not? What's missing from the description? What phenomenon do we observe that isn't explained?
Neurological stimuli in the form of sensory inputs and feedback mechanisms within the neurological architecture.
Use of such technical jargon comes nowhere near to explaining the source of conscious thought.
Again, what part of the observed phenomena is not adequately explained by that account?
Which all boils down to physically defined reactions in material elements - so no definable source of manipulation - just the end results of physically defined cause and effect reactions.
We have innumerable examples of physical phenomena having an effect - manipulating - other physical objects and phenomena. What we don't have any evidence for, within the consideration of consciousnes or in anything else - is evidence of consistent, coherent manipulation of the physical by anything else. You've accepted that our thoughts correlate strongly with our subjective awareness of our own thought process. What reason do you have to think that's not a causitive mechanism and that rather there is another cause, which fundamentally changes the concept of physics?
Which reduces whatever comprises "you" to be just the inevitable unavoidable end result of physical reactions
And you keep pushing out variations of this like it's some sort of problem for my account and it really isn't. Yes, I am an inevitable instance of bioelectric activity for a short and generally coherent passage of time in a block-universe.
One day I sincerely hope and pray you will come to realise what comprises the real "you".
I already do, and it's amazing. I sincerely hope you stop desperately seeking some sort of validation from an imaginary friend and just appreciate that you're an amazing consequence of a spectacular universe and enjoy the time that you have.
O.
-
Why not? What's missing from the description? What phenomenon do we observe that isn't explained?
Again, what part of the observed phenomena is not adequately explained by that account?
What is missing is a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can generate a single entity of conscious awareness.
We can certainly mimic the outward appearance of conscious awareness by complex manipulation of reactions, but there would be nothing within those reactions which constitute the internal conscious awareness which defines "you".
We have innumerable examples of physical phenomena having an effect - manipulating - other physical objects and phenomena. What we don't have any evidence for, within the consideration of consciousnes or in anything else - is evidence of consistent, coherent manipulation of the physical by anything else. You've accepted that our thoughts correlate strongly with our subjective awareness of our own thought process. What reason do you have to think that's not a causitive mechanism and that rather there is another cause, which fundamentally changes the concept of physics?
The fundamental question here relates to the ultimate source of that which causes manipulation. My contention is that your conscious self is the source of manipulation. If you relate the source of manipulation to entirely physical causes, then the concept of "you" being the ultimate source disappears into oblivion because physically driven cause and effect chains of reactions will trace back to the beginning of time.
And you keep pushing out variations of this like it's some sort of problem for my account and it really isn't. Yes, I am an inevitable instance of bioelectric activity for a short and generally coherent passage of time in a block-universe.
I consider my ability to consciously choose my own thoughts, words and actions to be a reality rather than an illusion, which puts "me" as being the source of manipulation rather than endless chains of physically driven cause and effect.
I already do, and it's amazing. I sincerely hope you stop desperately seeking some sort of validation from an imaginary friend and just appreciate that you're an amazing consequence of a spectacular universe and enjoy the time that you have.
What is amazing is my ability to consciously interact with this universe rather than just react to it.
-
The fundamental question here relates to the ultimate source of that which causes manipulation. My contention is that your conscious self is the source of manipulation. If you relate the source of manipulation to entirely physical causes, then the concept of "you" being the ultimate source disappears into oblivion because physically driven cause and effect chains of reactions will trace back to the beginning of time...
As per usual, your contention amounts to a random 'self'. To disconnect your self from those long chains of cause and effect would be to render your self without anchor, without meaning, without any purpose or direction.
-
I consider my ability to consciously choose my own thoughts, words and actions to be a reality rather than an illusion
Trouble is, 'consciously choosing' a thought to think, is itself a thought process. So how do you resolve that evident circularity ?
-
My contention is that your conscious self is the source of manipulation.
What is missing is a feasible explanation for how a soul, visiting the space time manifold from where it resides outwith said STM, alone can generate a single action of physical manipulation
-
As per usual, your contention amounts to a random 'self'. To disconnect your self from those long chains of cause and effect would be to render your self without anchor, without meaning, without any purpose or direction.
No
Being able to consciously intercede within the physical chains of cause and effect gives me the freedom to consciously choose rather than just react.
-
Trouble is, 'consciously choosing' a thought to think, is itself a thought process. So how do you resolve that evident circularity ?
There is no infinite regress or circularity because I am the cause of my own thoughts.
I am not a machine - I have a will of my own.
You seem unable to appreciate the reality of the precious gift of free will which nature alone could never achieve.
-
What is missing is a feasible explanation for how a soul, visiting the space time manifold from where it resides outwith said STM, alone can generate a single action of physical manipulation
I have no explanation for how the interaction of conscious will within this otherwise physically predetermined universe works.
What we have is our own demonstrable ability to consciously interact which defies any physical definition.
-
No
Being able to consciously intercede within the physical chains of cause and effect gives me the freedom to consciously choose rather than just react.
But you would have no basis on which to resolve choice were you disconnected from those chains of cause and effect. Consciousness would give you no advantage if you have no reason for your preferences. You would merely be consciously making random choices rather than just making random choices. Consciousness will not furnish you with a sound basis for preferences.
-
There is no infinite regress or circularity because I am the cause of my own thoughts.
..
You cannot see the circularity in that ?
Really ?
-
Being able to consciously intercede within the physical chains of cause and effect gives me the freedom to consciously choose rather than just react.
And you making a choice is something that happens as your mind changes state over time, so the logic we discussed before (here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg801201#msg801201)) applies, regardless of the role of consciousness. Choices are always reactions (unless they involve randomness).
There is no infinite regress or circularity because I am the cause of my own thoughts.
You really haven't given this any thought at all, have you?
-
What is missing is a feasible explanation for how material reactions alone can generate a single entity of conscious awareness.
No, that's not missing - any number of people can see it in that description. You can't accept it; is that a function of an inadequacy of that description, or is that a function of your interpretation?
We can certainly mimic the outward appearance of conscious awareness by complex manipulation of reactions, but there would be nothing within those reactions which constitute the internal conscious awareness which defines "you".
Except that you can't show that there is anything else to it. You keep claiming it, you keep asserting that there must be something else, but you can neither show what it is, show what's missing, or show how there are elements we can see which don't have readily explainable mechanisms. It's like you asserting that a car engine can't be providing the power because dead dinosaurs don't have any explosions in them, but not being able to show where the explosions are coming from somewhere else, that something else is getting into the engine or that the engine isn't doing the work.
The fundamental question here relates to the ultimate source of that which causes manipulation.
No, the fundamental question is what makes you think there's some external 'ultimate source'?
My contention is that your conscious self is the source of manipulation.
No-one is in any doubt what your contention is. However, on an evidentiary basis you have no justification for your contention, and on a philosophical one you have the infinite reduction problem of 'well if your brain needs an external consciousness to drive it, what drives your external consciousness' to try to lever in the untenable 'freedom of will' that you appear to need.
If you relate the source of manipulation to entirely physical causes, then the concept of "you" being the ultimate source disappears into oblivion because physically driven cause and effect chains of reactions will trace back to the beginning of time.
And, again, the issue here isn't the restriction to the physical. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accede to a thought experiment where there's some intangible, separate 'spirit' influencing consciousness, you still have to explain how that is at once dependent on prior events enough to be considered 'will', but unconstrained enough to be considered 'free'. That's not a 'physical' restriction, it's a logical one. The proposal you have, before we get to the mechanics, is logically unsound.
I consider my ability to consciously choose my own thoughts, words and actions to be a reality rather than an illusion, which puts "me" as being the source of manipulation rather than endless chains of physically driven cause and effect.
And your subjective experience is exactly as liable to error as everyone else's subjective experience of everything they do. That's why we measure things, that's why we don't just rely on 'feelings' to determine how the world works.
What is amazing is my ability to consciously interact with this universe rather than just react to it.
What's amazing is your ability to continually fail to react to the points made and continue with the 'but I feel like it' response as though you are making some killer point.
O.
-
What is amazing is my ability to consciously interact with this universe rather than just react to it.
What's the difference?
-
But you would have no basis on which to resolve choice were you disconnected from those chains of cause and effect. Consciousness would give you no advantage if you have no reason for your preferences. You would merely be consciously making random choices rather than just making random choices. Consciousness will not furnish you with a sound basis for preferences.
Conscious interaction is not random.
Neither is it a predetermined reaction.
You seem to be stuck in the groove of trying to shoe horn reality to fit in with the mechanistic cause and effect scenario we observe in physical material reactions. There is more to human life.
-
Conscious interaction is not random.
....
Well stop insisting that it is then. Every time you claim that human will is its own cause you are defining human will to be random. If our hopes and fears and choices are not part of the flow of cause and effect then our hopes and fears and choices are random. You can't have it both ways, if you want to be 'free' from cause and effect then you are random, that is what free from cause and effect means. If you want meaningful choice making, then you cannot be free from causality. You still haven't come to terms with this reality.
-
Conscious interaction is not random.
Neither is it a predetermined reaction.
If it does not involve randomness then it is subject to the logic of determinism (as I explained here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg801201#msg801201)), and so is a deterministic reaction.
You seem to be stuck in the groove of trying to shoe horn reality to fit in with the mechanistic cause and effect scenario we observe in physical material reactions.
You're the one who is mindlessly repeating the same nonsense that has all been addressed countless times before with answers you just ignore. It is you who is trying to shoehorn reality into being the way you need it to be to support your superstitions. And, to round off, you've once again misrepresented the argument against you as being based on the physical world.
Are you just going to spam this thread with all the same fallacy-ridden, reasoning-free, dishonest nonsense you posted on SfG?
-
Well stop insisting that it is then. Every time you claim that human will is its own cause you are defining human will to be random. If our hopes and fears and choices are not part of the flow of cause and effect then our hopes and fears and choices are random. You can't have it both ways, if you want to be 'free' from cause and effect then you are random, that is what free from cause and effect means. If you want meaningful choice making, then you cannot be free from causality. You still haven't come to terms with this reality.
As I said previously, you persist in trying to squeeze the reality of our human free will to fit in with your observance of time related chains of cause and effect in material elements. You need to come to terms with the fact that your "experience" of conscious freedom is not an illusion - it is a reality. Enjoy your freedom - it is real.
-
As I said previously, you persist in trying to squeeze the reality of our human free will to fit in with your observance of time related chains of cause and effect in material elements. You need to come to terms with the fact that your "experience" of conscious freedom is not an illusion - it is a reality. Enjoy your freedom - it is real.
What 'real freedom' is, is freedom from coercion. This is the only honest and meaningful usage of the word 'free' in the context of will. You cannot meaningfully be 'free' from anything else - you cannot be 'free' from yourself, this would be incomprehensible; you cannot be 'free' from cause and effect, that would render all your choices random. I am merely speaking the plain truth in these matters, you are the one ducking and diving to avoid engagement, to avoid actually thinking it through.
-
Conscious interaction is not random.
Ok.
Neither is it a predetermined reaction.
If you're saying that it hasn't been chosen in advance by some advanced intelligence, I'd agree with you. If you're suggesting that it's not inevitable given the starting condition, I'd have to disagree.
You seem to be stuck in the groove of trying to shoe horn reality to fit in with the mechanistic cause and effect scenario we observe in physical material reactions.
You keep trying to squeeze in something else, with no evidence that it's necessary, no evidence that it exists, and no logical way for it to actually exist... that's 3-1 in your favour, if that's how you want to score it.
There is more to human life.
Why does there need to be more than that amazing realisation? Every nuance and subtlety of affection, anger, joy, sadness, excitement, ennui, amazement, tedium, avarice and charity is an incalculable interaction of millions, billions of tiny neuroelectric signals that in each and every one would produce a marginally different but utterly unique combination of emotional and intellectual responses. And in the face of that realisation, in the wake of that finding, you want to run away to fairy stories and magic to try to justify impossibilities.
O.
-
If you're saying that it hasn't been chosen in advance by some advanced intelligence, I'd agree with you. If you're suggesting that it's not inevitable given the starting condition, I'd have to disagree.
And do you honestly presume that your conscious choice to proclaim your disagreement was an inevitable reaction to past events, which you could not possibly have avoided?
And if you do claim this to be an honest presumption - what precisely is the source which can define such a claim of honesty?
You keep trying to squeeze in something else, with no evidence that it's necessary, no evidence that it exists, and no logical way for it to actually exist... that's 3-1 in your favour, if that's how you want to score it.
The evidence you continue to take for granted is your existence and your own capabilities.
Why does there need to be more than that amazing realisation? Every nuance and subtlety of affection, anger, joy, sadness, excitement, ennui, amazement, tedium, avarice and charity is an incalculable interaction of millions, billions of tiny neuroelectric signals that in each and every one would produce a marginally different but utterly unique combination of emotional and intellectual responses. And in the face of that realisation, in the wake of that finding, you want to run away to fairy stories and magic to try to justify impossibilities.
What is that comes to this realisation?
Is it definable by nothing but electrons buzzing round in your material brain?
-
What 'real freedom' is, is freedom from coercion. This is the only honest and meaningful usage of the word 'free' in the context of will. You cannot meaningfully be 'free' from anything else - you cannot be 'free' from yourself, this would be incomprehensible; you cannot be 'free' from cause and effect, that would render all your choices random. I am merely speaking the plain truth in these matters, you are the one ducking and diving to avoid engagement, to avoid actually thinking it through.
And what precisely can give me the freedom needed to "think things through"?
Your ability to consciously think things through requires much more than freedom from coercion. It requires the freedom to guide your own thoughts. Without such guidance, your thought up conclusions could not claim any viability.
-
And what precisely can give me the freedom needed to "think things through"?
Your ability to consciously think things through requires much more than freedom from coercion. I requires the freedom to guide your own thoughts. Without such guidance, your thought up conclusions could not claim any viability.
As explained exhaustively already, to 'guide' your thoughts would itself be a thought process. There is no sense in which your thoughts are separate from 'you'. And anyway, irrational circularity notwithstanding, to whatever extent it is reasonable to describe thought processes as 'free', the same applies to birds and rabbits and hedgehogs. In this sense, whatever cognitive functioning we have in common with other species, we also share in that thought processes are usually free from external coercion, whatever the species. What distinguishes humans from other species is the range and sophistication of cognitive functions; this is not 'freedom', it is complexity, sophistication; it is not supernatural, but entirely natural. An adult human has much greater intellectual capacities than a human infant; so, do we imagine that the process of growing up is a process of becoming gradually supernatural ? Of course not, we grow cortex, we build neural connections, this is not some spooky supernatural 'freedom', it is increasing mental capacity supported by an increasingly complex brain.
-
And what precisely can give me the freedom needed to "think things through"?
Your ability to consciously think things through requires much more than freedom from coercion. I requires the freedom to guide your own thoughts. Without such guidance, your thought up conclusions could not claim any viability.
Most animals have brains which can produce thoughts which are viable(I.E. capable of working successfully) or they would have long ago become extinct.
-
Most animals have brains which can produce thoughts which are viable(I.E. capable of working successfully) or they would have long ago become extinct.
In this you appear to presume that externally observed reactions in animals is indicative of conscious thought. But such reactions can be produced by programmed instinct coupled with automated learning processes. The logic behind the theory of evolution would indicate that the development of instinctive reactions to sensory data is all that is needed to give survival benefit. To extrapolate this instinctive reaction into conscious thought would be a huge step for evolution to cross.
-
Humans are species of animal, our thinking processes are rather more advanced than that of other animals.
-
In this you appear to presume that externally observed reactions in animals is indicative of conscious thought. But such reactions can be produced by programmed instinct coupled with automated learning processes. The logic behind the theory of evolution would indicate that the development of instinctive reactions to sensory data is all that is needed to give survival benefit. To extrapolate this instinctive reaction into conscious thought would be a huge step for evolution to cross.
No higher animals exhibit automated learning. There is a difference between artificially intelligent machines and living creatures. Artificially intelligent bots are not conscious and learn without consciousness. Living creatures are different, they learn whilst conscious. Have you ever seen a bear refining its hunting skills whilst in hibernation ? Of course you haven't.
-
In this you appear to presume that externally observed reactions in animals is indicative of conscious thought. But such reactions can be produced by programmed instinct coupled with automated learning processes. The logic behind the theory of evolution would indicate that the development of instinctive reactions to sensory data is all that is needed to give survival benefit. To extrapolate this instinctive reaction into conscious thought would be a huge step for evolution to cross.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/07/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/smarter-you-think/202003/do-animals-think
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/03/scientists-think-that-animals-think/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge_Declaration_on_Consciousness
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
-
As I said previously, you persist in trying to squeeze the reality of our human free will to fit in with your observance of time related chains of cause and effect in material elements.
More dishonest misrepresentation. As I explained at length on SfG, it has nothing to do with observations of "material elements", it's basic logic applied to anything that changes state over time, as any choice-making entity must do.
It really is laughable that you accuse others of trying "squeeze reality" into their point of view, when you totally refuse to even to accept the reality of the nature of the arguments against you. It appears as if you dare not accept that people have a different argument to the one you've got fixed in your mind and are too terrified to even try to adapt your argument to that fact. Hence the endless, pointless repetition of the same fallacy-ridden, nonsensical script that you dare not even try to adapt to what people are actually saying.
If you're not afraid you may be wrong, why won't you even try to learn some basic logic? Why does it never bother you when your fallacies (poor reasoning) are pointed out?
-
No higher animals exhibit automated learning. There is a difference between artificially intelligent machines and living creatures. Artificially intelligent bots are not conscious and learn without consciousness. Living creatures are different, they learn whilst conscious. Have you ever seen a bear refining its hunting skills whilst in hibernation ? Of course you haven't.
By automated learning I was referring to the capability of animal reactions to be influenced by past experiences - just another evolutionary trait which does not necessarily require conscious thought.
-
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/07/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/smarter-you-think/202003/do-animals-think
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/03/scientists-think-that-animals-think/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge_Declaration_on_Consciousness
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
None of which can actually perceive what an animal is thinking.
We have the ability to describe our thoughts - animals do not have such an ability, so we cannot presume to know their thoughts.
-
By automated learning I was referring to the capability of animal reactions to be influenced by past experiences - just another evolutionary trait which does not necessarily require conscious thought.
Has it ever occurred to you, Alan, that conscious thought is just another evolutionary trait too?
-
None of which can actually perceive what an animal is thinking.
We have the ability to describe our thoughts - animals do not have such an ability, so we cannot presume to know their thoughts.
The same applies to humans in some degree. Humans have more sophisticated language and so are able to communicate their thoughts in greater detail; although this same ability means that humans also have a greater ability to deceive and mislead others. Having said that, other animals are not entirely innocent in that regard, many species exhibit devious behaviours calculated to trick rivals. Humans have the greater cognitive sophistication in many respects but certainly not all respects, and in areas where humans outperform other species that indicates our superior sophistication in those aspects; it does not mean we have acquired supernatural powers, that is a ridiculous position for an educated person to take.
-
Has it ever occurred to you, Alan, that conscious thought is just another evolutionary trait too?
The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.
-
The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.
Show your working.
-
The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.
I don't see that at all. The theory of evolution makes one heck of a lot more sense than the rather silly creation tale in the bible.
-
The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.
If a' fact' then show your method and evidence: else cut out the inane, fallacy-ridden and infantile theobabble.
-
The fact that it is impossible to replicate thoughts outside the human mind would indicate that such a property is way beyond the capacity of being generated by the crude process of the random, purposeless events involved with evolutionary theory.
Something that took 3 billion years to come about through natural processes and we haven't managed to reproduce in an artificial model with twenty years, therefore it must be magic. ::)
Luckily, not everyone gives up so easily.
-
If you're not afraid you may be wrong, why won't you even try to learn some basic logic? Why does it never bother you when your fallacies (poor reasoning) are pointed out?
Repetitive quoting of your short sighted logic, which presumes that everything must happen within the time dependent "cause and effect" scenario found in material reactions, can never take away my conscious freedom.
Do you honestly believe that in every choice I make I could not possibly have chosen anything different? If so why bother trying to point out my apparent "faults" which in your logical scenario are beyond my control?
-
Do you honestly believe that in every choice I make I could not possibly have chosen anything different? If so why bother trying to point out my apparent "faults" which in your logical scenario are beyond my control?
If you could have chosen differently, that would mean your actual choice was random, then ...
-
Repetitive quoting of your short sighted logic...
Staggering hypocrisy about repetition and another unsupported assertion that my logic is "short sighted" despite the fact that you've never once been able to point out any actual flaws.
...which presumes that everything must happen within the time dependent...
Like it or not, your mind is something that changes its state over time (as must anything that makes choices) and it is therefore subject to the logic I (and many others) have put forward.
..."cause and effect" scenario found in material reactions...
It's still got nothing to do with "material reactions" - please stop lying about it.
...can never take away my conscious freedom.
There is nothing at all about what humans do that you have been able to point to that would require your nonsensical, self-contradictory notion of "freedom". The "conscious freedom" you actually have is fully consistent with determinism (not being able to have done differently in exactly the same circumstances).
Do you honestly believe that in every choice I make I could not possibly have chosen anything different?
If you could have done differently in exactly the same situation, there cannot possibly have been a reason for that difference, so it would be random.
If so why bother trying to point out my apparent "faults" which in your logical scenario are beyond my control?
There is nothing about determinism that stops you from learning from your mistakes.
And you didn't even attempt to answer the question I asked and you quoted: If you're not afraid you may be wrong, why won't you even try to learn some basic logic? Why does it never bother you when your fallacies (poor reasoning) are pointed out?
-
If you could have chosen differently, that would mean your actual choice was random, then ...
No.
It just means that I have the freedom to consciously choose, rather than react.
The source which determines my conscious choice cannot be subject to the pre determined cause and effect scenario I am constantly being quoted, because that would mean that it was not my choice, but just a reaction determined by past events over which I have no control. You seem unable to accept the profound difference between choice and reaction.
-
And you didn't even attempt to answer the question I asked and you quoted: If you're not afraid you may be wrong, why won't you even try to learn some basic logic? Why does it never bother you when your fallacies (poor reasoning) are pointed out?
If I am wrong, I would not have the conscious freedom to try to learn anything, because whatever invokes the action needed to learn would be dictated by past events - not by my present state of conscious self.
So I cannot be possibly be afraid of admitting to something which would be impossible.
I can claim full accountability for all my conscious choices, because they are invoked by the ever present state of conscious awareness which defines "me", not by the inevitable consequences to past events beyond my control.
-
The AB fallacy-fest continues unabated....
It just means that I have the freedom to consciously choose, rather than react.
The source which determines my conscious choice cannot be subject to the pre determined cause and effect scenario I am constantly being quoted, because that would mean that it was not my choice, but just a reaction determined by past events over which I have no control.
An appeal to consequences, cunningly combined with a false dilemma.
If I am wrong, I would not have the conscious freedom to try to learn anything...
Baseless assertion.
I'll ask you again the question you seem too terrified to even think about: what is it about anything that humans do that requires the ability to have done differently in exactly the same situation without randomness?
And, if every we had that ability, it would mean we could do differently for absolutely no possible reason, which means randomness, not freedom.
...invoked by the ever present state of conscious awareness...
No matter how many times you repeat this gibberish, it is still utterly devoid of any logical meaning.
You have never once faced up to the actual logic that you keep on calling "flawed" and "short-sighted" and been able to point to any flaws. You have never once been able to construct anything remotely like the "sound logic" you claimed to have. All we get is the endless repetition of baseless assertion, meaningless gibberish, and your usual selection of logical fallacies.
-
I'll ask you again the question you seem too terrified to even think about: what is it about anything that humans do that requires the ability to have done differently in exactly the same situation without randomness?
To think about it requires a consciously driven act of will - not an inevitable reaction to past events.
I do choose to think about it - and the fact that I am able to think about it reveals that I have the conscious freedom to do so.
If I try to think about such action being entirely dictated as a reaction to past events I will inevitably conclude that such a scenario is impossible because it fails to comply with the reality needed for me to consciously invoke my thought process.
And, if every we had that ability, it would mean we could do differently for absolutely no possible reason, which means randomness, not freedom.
Reasons exist in our conscious awareness - we are free to use them as we wish.
No matter how many times you repeat this gibberish, it is still utterly devoid of any logical meaning.
You have never once faced up to the actual logic that you keep on calling "flawed" and "short-sighted" and been able to point to any flaws. You have never once been able to construct anything remotely like the "sound logic" you claimed to have. All we get is the endless repetition of baseless assertion, meaningless gibberish, and your usual selection of logical fallacies.
Logic is meaningless if it contradicts reality.
The reality is that I have the freedom to repeatedly witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth behind our existence.
Just as you have the freedom to repeatedly choose to contradict my claims about the reality of our human free will.
-
To think about it requires a consciously driven act of will - not an inevitable reaction to past events.
I do choose to think about it - and the fact that I am able to think about it reveals that I have the conscious freedom to do so.
If I try to think about such action being entirely dictated as a reaction to past events I will inevitably conclude that such a scenario is impossible because it fails to comply with the reality needed for me to consciously invoke my thought process.
How do you know that a "consciously driven act of will" isn't also an "inevitable reaction to past events"?
All you're doing is assuming that if you will it via your conscious mind it must somehow not be entirely the result of chains of cause and effect. This is begging the question on an epic scale. Where is the actual reasoning?
Logic is meaningless if it contradicts reality.
You have yet to show any contradiction whatsoever with reality and your simplistic, reasoning-free intuitions and blind faith are meaningless if they contradict logic.
-
To think about it requires a consciously driven act of will - not an inevitable reaction to past events.
I do choose to think about it - and the fact that I am able to think about it reveals that I have the conscious freedom to do so.
If I try to think about such action being entirely dictated as a reaction to past events I will inevitably conclude that such a scenario is impossible because it fails to comply with the reality needed for me to consciously invoke my thought process.
Reasons exist in our conscious awareness - we are free to use them as we wish.
Logic is meaningless if it contradicts reality.
The reality is that I have the freedom to repeatedly witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth behind our existence.
Just as you have the freedom to repeatedly choose to contradict my claims about the reality of our human free will.
All that shows is that you think that logic is meaningless if it contradicts what you see as reality.
Given that the logic is correct then it must follow that it is your sense of reality which is at fault.
-
All that shows is that you think that logic is meaningless if it contradicts what you see as reality.
Given that the logic is correct then it must follow that it is your sense of reality which is at fault.
I assume that my sense of reality is the same as for any other human being.
A sense in which our freedom to choose is a reality rather than an illusion.
So do you put your faith in a presumed logic which denies this freedom?
Or can you accept that this sense of freedom is a reality which is beyond human understanding?
-
I assume that my sense of reality is he same as any other human being.
A sense in which our freedom to choose is a reality rather than an illusion.
So do you put your faith in a presumed logic which denies this freedom?
Nowhere in all your countless posts on the subject (that I've seen, anyway) have you ever been able to point to a solid contradiction between anything we experience and the logic you keep on denying.
Not once.
We all experience being able to do as we wish but nobody experiences being able to change the way they think or choose their wants, desires, and motivations. If we override a want, it's because we want something else more. More specifically, nobody has ever experienced doing something different in exactly the same circumstances, let alone done so while knowing that it wasn't random.
We all experience the same reality, the difference seems to be that other people have actually applied some rationality and honest introspection, while you have gone with the most superficial, intuitive first impression and elevated it to an Unquestionable Truth, without giving it a moment's thought, because doing so supported your pre-existing superstitions.
Or can you accept that this sense of freedom is a reality which is beyond human understanding?
If it was "beyond human understanding", then firstly, you couldn't have a logical argument for it (it would just be an unknown), and secondly, you couldn't conclude that the explanation wasn't natural without claiming omniscience about nature.
-
I assume that my sense of reality is he same as any other human being.
Then you assume wrongly: do you see red as I do?
A sense in which our freedom to choose is a reality rather than an illusion.
It is the feeling that we have freedom to choose that we experience, Alan, and that feeling certainly feels very real: but it is just a feeling nonetheless.
So do you put your faith in a presumed logic which denies this freedom?
Logic isn't "presumed", Alan, and it doesn't lose it's force because you don't understand it, or won't understand it for fear of the implications for your religious beliefs.
Or can you accept that this sense of freedom is a reality which is beyond human understanding?
What you do presume thought is that you have some profound knowledge of something you also claim is "beyond human understanding", which is a very silly position to adopt.
-
I assume that my sense of reality is he same as any other human being.
A sense in which our freedom to choose is a reality rather than an illusion.
So do you put your faith in a presumed logic which denies this freedom?
Or can you accept that this sense of freedom is a reality which is beyond human understanding?
I've commented fairly frequently that I don't think my sense of reality is the same as yours, not sure whether you are unable to comprehend that .
Anyway after one time of writing about it, I wrote a reasonably long OP about it - link below. So your assumption that you have been using here as part of your approach is incorrect. Please think about that and them explain what adjustments it has necessitated for you.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13903.msg673968#msg673968
-
No higher animals exhibit automated learning. There is a difference between artificially intelligent machines and living creatures. Artificially intelligent bots are not conscious and learn without consciousness. Living creatures are different, they learn whilst conscious. Have you ever seen a bear refining its hunting skills whilst in hibernation ? Of course you haven't.
I think this statement is completely unsupportable.
What is the difference between automated learning and learning? What do you mean by "higher animals"? Do you mean animals that exhibit sophisticated learning skills? How do you know that all animals that learn are conscious? Maybe you are just attributing consciousness to those animals that demonstrate learning skills.
I've never seen a bear or any other animal demonstrate learning skills while asleep, but then I've never seen an AI demonstrate learning skills while not running.
-
Alan, in response to your post 107:
I assume that my sense of reality is he same as any other human being.
That's a strange statement to make. It seems that my sense of reality is very much different to yours, which, of course, by itself, doesn't make either of us correct. For instance, when I was younger, my sense of reality was that I was almost invincible. That changed as I became older. I have never had any feeling that there is any god. That has not changed as I became older, rather it strengthened.
A sense in which our freedom to choose is a reality rather than an illusion.
My sense of reality is that it is my brain doing all the work and any decision I make has to made for reasons, whether they are conscious or not and whether they are trivial or not. I have never got any sense whatever of a 'soul' which controls/helps in this decision making process. Does this tally with your 'sense of reality' or have you 'assumed' too much?
So do you put your faith in a presumed logic which denies this freedom?
Logic stands or falls by its own parameters. If you mean do I reject logic(and therefore run the risk of becoming illogical), no, I don't think I do. To 'presume' something is to accept something on the basis of probability, so, I suppose that I do accept logic as a much more sensible method than illogic/lack of logic.
Or can you accept that this sense of freedom is a reality which is beyond human understanding?
Although not completely understood, there is a great deal of evidence that this is a complex brain process which involves the unconscious as well as the conscious, that the same or similar process is present in many other animals and that there is no evidence at all of a 'soul'. Also, the 'sense' of freedom, as I have already explained, doesn't necessarily relate to how reality is. So, I wouldn't agree with your statement.
Finally, as I have said before, I have complete freedom to choose except when constrained by external factors and with the understanding that the word 'choice' does not describe how that process is made.
-
And do you honestly presume that your conscious choice to proclaim your disagreement was an inevitable reaction to past events, which you could not possibly have avoided?
No, I don't presume. I conclude, based on the available evidence: brain activity correlates strongly with consciousness; there is no evidence of consciousness separate from brain activity; there is no evidence of elements of brain activity which are not attributable to known physical stimuli. From that I conclude that consciousness emerges from brain activity, there is no presumption.
And if you do claim this to be an honest presumption - what precisely is the source which can define such a claim of honesty? The evidence you continue to take for granted is your existence and your own capabilities.
My existence, for which I also do not need to fall back on a supernatural creator story.
What is that comes to this realisation? Is it definable by nothing but electrons buzzing round in your material brain?
That's the way the evidence leads me,yes. Do you have any evidence of anything else, or just that continued, persistent need to cleave to unvalidated, and arguably unvalidatable, dream of a 'spirit'?
O.
-
there is no evidence of elements of brain activity which are not attributable to known physical stimuli. From that I conclude that consciousness emerges from brain activity, there is no presumption.
You need more than correlation to make the presumption that conscious awareness emerges from nothing but physical brain activity.
We have no feasible theory for how conscious awareness can be defined by physical reactions in material elements.
You have what appears to be an insurmountable problem - how can many discrete reactions be able to form a single entity of internal conscious awareness?
I put it to you that conscious awareness comprises perception of reactions - notthe reactions themselves.
-
You need more than correlation to make the presumption that conscious awareness emerges from nothing but physical brain activity.
We have no feasible theory for how conscious awareness can be defined by physical reactions in material elements.
You have what appears to be an insurmountable problem - how can many discrete reactions be able to form a single entity of internal conscious awareness?
I put it to you that conscious awareness comprises perception of reactions - notthe reactions themselves.
I put it to you that you are using the fallacy of composition yet again.
-
You need more than correlation to make the presumption that conscious awareness emerges from nothing but physical brain activity.
We have no feasible theory for how conscious awareness can be defined by physical reactions in material elements.
You have what appears to be an insurmountable problem - how can many discrete reactions be able to form a single entity of internal conscious awareness?
I put it to you that conscious awareness comprises perception of reactions - notthe reactions themselves.
There is no reason to see that as an insurmountable problem; clearly it happens, and so it falls to us to figure out how evolution solved that trick.
I'm looking at my monitor now to read that post. I am not aware of the billions of tiny biochemical reactions that comprise the transduction chain from retina to visual cortex. What I am aware of is the monitor and that is thanks to all those reactions going on under the hood. We don't perceive the individual reactions but rather our perception is what emerges from them.
-
We have no feasible theory for how conscious awareness can be defined by physical reactions in material elements.
You have what appears to be an insurmountable problem - how can many discrete reactions be able to form a single entity of internal conscious awareness?
Firstly, (among other problems) this is an argument from ignorance fallacy and, secondly, we are a great deal closer to an explanation than impossible, self-contradictory magic and blind faith.
On the subject of fallacies, I'll ask yet again: why don't you seem to care that you are falling into mistakes in reasoning that have been identified and named over millennia of human thought? Do you think the Great Alan Burns is so superior to the rest of mortal humans? Do you think they don't apply (if so, why don't you ever challenge them)? Don't you care because all you really want to do is preach and logic just doesn't matter? What is it?
-
You need more than correlation to make the presumption that conscious awareness emerges from nothing but physical brain activity.
And I showed more - we also have nothing missing from the explanation, and no activity that still requires an explanation.
We have no feasible theory for how conscious awareness can be defined by physical reactions in material elements.
Which 'we' is this? I do, you just don't like it because it doesn't have magic in it.
You have what appears to be an insurmountable problem - how can many discrete reactions be able to form a single entity of internal conscious awareness?
Have you ever seen a cloud? Have you ever seen a cloud particle?
I put it to you that conscious awareness comprises perception of reactions - not the reactions themselves.
And I put it to you that the perception is another reaction. You have this need to make something else the perceiver, but where's the signal going to this receiver, what's the nature of this perceiver, how is the response of the perceiver coming back to the brain to be manifested in a response that diverts through particular centres of the brain for interaction then being directed back to the perceiver... where are the signals? Where is the brain activity happening in response to these signals?
If this model was right we'd have brain activity in apparent response to nothing, and that's not a feature that we see.
O.
-
There is no reason to see that as an insurmountable problem; clearly it happens, and so it falls to us to figure out how evolution solved that trick.
Yes, it is seen to happen, but seeing it happening is not an explanation for how it happens. The basic problem is that physical reactions do not define perception.
I'm looking at my monitor now to read that post. I am not aware of the billions of tiny biochemical reactions that comprise the transduction chain from retina to visual cortex. What I am aware of is the monitor and that is thanks to all those reactions going on under the hood. We don't perceive the individual reactions but rather our perception is what emerges from them.
What happens is that your conscious awareness can perceive information contained within your brain cells - information produced by reactions from your sensory organs,
Nothing actually emerges from physical reactions other than more physical reactions. Science has yet to define how conscious perception actually works in any material sense. It is obviously "you" doing the perceiving, but what comprises "you"?
-
Yes, it is seen to happen, but seeing it happening is not an explanation for how it happens. The basic problem is that physical reactions do not define perception.What happens is that your conscious awareness can perceive information contained within your brain cells - information produced by reactions from your sensory organs,
Nothing actually emerges from physical reactions other than more physical reactions. Science has yet to define how conscious perception actually works in any material sense. It is obviously "you" doing the perceiving, but what comprises "you"?
You cannot explain perception in terms of yet more perception, that is circular. And anyway, if you were to look at brain cells, all you would see is a tangle of white matter and grey matter. For perception to emerge, you have to be those brain cells; a third party look at them would not reveal the experience of being them. This is the nature of experience, you can only have human experience by being human, not by inhabiting a human. Likewise, a hedgehog's experience derives from its being a hedgehog.
-
Have you ever seen a cloud? Have you ever seen a cloud particle?
A cloud is the human label given to a collection of individual water particles suspended in air. The human label does not make the cloud into a single entity - it is still a collection of individual particles.
-
A cloud is the human label given to a collection of individual water particles suspended in air. The human label does not make the cloud into a single entity - it is still a collection of individual particles.
Consciousness is the name given to the sensation of mental feedback within humans by humans - it does not make consciousness some ephemeral 'other' sort of though, it is still neuroelectrical activity within a brain.
O.
-
Yes, it is seen to happen, but seeing it happening is not an explanation for how it happens.
Neither is impossible, self-contradictory magic. Presuming that no current explanation means that an explanation is impossible is a fallacy (aka a stupid mistake in reasoning). The rest of your post is reasoning-free assertion.
-
Neither is impossible, self-contradictory magic. Presuming that no current explanation means that an explanation is impossible is a fallacy (aka a stupid mistake in reasoning). The rest of your post is reasoning-free assertion.
I am not just presuming that conscious perception can't be defined by physical reactions alone.
I am postulating the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to perceive themselves.
Conscious perception necessitates awareness of material reactions and properties.
The question is this - How can a set of material reactions represent a conscious perception of other material reactions?
What is capable of perception in an entirely material environment?
-
I am not just presuming that conscious perception can't be defined by physical reactions alone.
Excellent - so we can chuck 'souls' in the bin, where the idea belongs. Maybe you should try less hard to 'define' things.
I am postulating the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to perceive themselves.
Which is an argument that mixes your trademark incredulity along with ignorance.
Conscious perception necessitates awareness of material reactions and properties.
Lucky then we have biology that can do that sort of thing.
The question is this - How can a set of material reactions represent a conscious perception of other material reactions?
Different bits of biological materials in your head have different functions, and then they interact - bingo!
What is capable of perception in an entirely material environment?
That would have to be material, silly.
-
Excellent - so we can chuck 'souls' in the bin, where the idea belongs. Maybe you should try less hard to 'define' things.
Which is an argument that mixes your trademark incredulity along with ignorance.
Lucky then we have biology that can do that sort of thing.
Different bits of biological materials in your head have different functions, and then they interact - bingo!
That would have to be material, silly.
So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.
-
So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.
You're being silly and fallacious again, Alan.
-
So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.
As opposed to made up shite
-
So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
And it's still better at explaining it than your claims of self-contradictory magic and meaningless gibberish.
I am not just presuming that conscious perception can't be defined by physical reactions alone.
I am postulating the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to perceive themselves.
This looks like you're turning an argument from ignorance into an argument from personal incredulity. Out of one fallacy and straight into another.
These are recognised basic mistakes in reasoning, Alan. Why don't you even seem to care?
-
So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.
We don't understand everything, that is why we do science, to figure things out. If we all regressed back into magical thinking at every challenge we'd still be living in caves and wearing goat skins. Be glad that some people rise to the challenge even if you cannot or will not.
-
So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.
Actually quite a lot of work has been done which points clearly to the conclusion that consciousness emanates from the biological brain.
E.G. https://www.mpg.de/5839948/conscious_perception
And what have you got to offer? Your own meanderings on the subject, with lots of talk on 'souls' and assertions of the impossibility of conscious awareness being a physical process of the brain, and all without a jot of evidence to back up any of your assertions at all, whilst completely and conveniently ignoring the evidence from the hard work which has been done by others.
And then you get on your little soapbox to criticise others because they have not yet achieved a complete answer! I seem to get the smell of parochial hypocrisy here.
-
I am not just presuming that conscious perception can't be defined by physical reactions alone. I am postulating the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to perceive themselves.
You can postulate, but unless you support it with anything then it's just spitballing.
Conscious perception necessitates awareness of material reactions and properties.
Conscious perception requires perception of a conscious variety - well colour me convinced!
The question is this - How can a set of material reactions represent a conscious perception of other material reactions?
That's an interesting question, certainly. More important, whilst you wait for an answer - because currently we don't know - is why would you think there was anything else?
What is capable of perception in an entirely material environment?
People, at least, it seems. Unless you've evidence of something non-material?
O.