Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

That is because you can refer to an independent datum from which the spin can be perceived.

Yes - and referring to a datum also requires that the thing doing the perceiving has to be embedded in time. It has to track how one thing varies with respect to another.

But if the human mind comprises nothing more than material elements...

Just to note again - the argument that undoes your nonsense about 'freedom' or 'free will' in no way depends on our minds being nothing but material reactions.

[Stranger]

Try defining "memory" from first principles in material terms from outside human perception.

It's a record of the past. I thought you worked in computers - they tend to have memories too. This really isn't hard - you seem to be making your 'arguments' progressively more and more absurd (something I wouldn't have thought possible).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That is because you can refer to an independent datum from which the spin can be perceived.

As I explained to you (and you've ignored), we're spacially independent but not temporally so. There's no "it's magic innit" required because there's a sufficient material explanation available.

Incidentally, as you ignored this earlier rebuttal too: can you now understand that you have to rebut the materialistic argument for "free" will before you can jump to, "but the fact that you can compose this...." etc?         

[Alan Burns]

It's a record of the past. I thought you worked in computers - they tend to have memories too. This really isn't hard - you seem to be making your 'arguments' progressively more and more absurd (something I wouldn't have thought possible).

What is  labelled as "memory" within a computer is just the current state of certain material elements.  It can only be categorised as memory from our human perception.

[SusanDoris]

What is  labelled as "memory" within a computer is just the current state of certain material elements.  It can only be categorised as memory from our human perception.

I suppose that is supposed to mean something, but as far as I can see it is more drivel.

[Alan Burns]

As I explained to you (and you've ignored), we're spacially independent but not temporally so. There's no "it's magic innit" required because there's a sufficient material explanation available.

Yes, we can perceive the explanation for why the earth's spin can be detected from an independent datum outside the earth which is not spinning.
Remove that datum and there is no perception of spin.

I use this as an illustrative example of the need for an independent datum to detect changes in state.
Once an element changes state, it can't detect its previous state.  It only has its current state.

We can only perceive the earth spinning from a datum which is not spinning.

Now try substituting "spin" with "time".
How can time be perceived from the current state of elements which are also travelling through the same time?
To perceive changes in state, you need a datum from outside the time line in which the change occurs.

The ever present state of the human soul provides such a datum.

[Stranger]

What is  labelled as "memory" within a computer is just the current state of certain material elements.  It can only be categorised as memory from our human perception.

Is there a point in there somewhere? Humans are needed to understand the concept of memory, it doesn't change the fact that memory exists anyway as part of the state of a system that represents the past. You need a human to understand the concept of nuclear fusion but it doesn't change the fact that the sun was shining long before anybody understood why. Non-human animals obviously have memory too, regardless of whether they understand the concept.

[Stranger]

I use this as an illustrative example of the need for an independent datum to detect changes in state.
Once an element changes state, it can't detect its previous state.  It only has its current state.

Of course it can, if it records the previous state (in memory).

Now try substituting "spin" with "time".
How can time be perceived from the current state of elements which are also travelling through the same time?

By using something that varies regularly (a 'clock') and memory.

To perceive changes in state, you need a datum from outside the time line in which the change occurs.

Utter drivel. Are you even serious?

The ever present state of the human soul provides such a datum.

You are forgetting (haven't bothered to think about) that perception is a change in state and hence requires time. You need something dynamic (able to change state) that notes (transfers to memory) a change relative to a 'fixed datum'.

Something that exists without time cannot perceive anything.

Is this all some kind of joke - or have you really not given this a single moment of logical, reasonable thought...?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What is  labelled as "memory" within a computer is just the current state of certain material elements.

If you want to use the terminology that computer memory “is just the current state of certain material elements” then the same is true of the memory of brains.

It can only be categorised as memory from our human perception.

Categorisation is just a post facto process of classification. The phenomenon is still there though whether or not it’s categorised. This shouldn’t be hard for you to understand Alan, it really shouldn’t.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, we can perceive the explanation for why the earth's spin can be detected from an independent datum outside the earth which is not spinning.
Remove that datum and there is no perception of spin.

If you remove any “datum” that provides information, then axiomatically that information isn't there to perceive. That wasn’t your claim though. 

I use this as an illustrative example of the need for an independent datum to detect changes in state.

But it remains stupid – the comparison is with the memory of the prior state.

Once an element changes state, it can't detect its previous state.  It only has its current state.

But if that “element" has memory, then it also has datum for comparison purposes remember?

We can only perceive the earth spinning from a datum which is not spinning.

Clearly not true. Planets spin, yet we can observe them changing position in the night sky and deduce the spin of both objects.

Now try substituting "spin" with "time".
How can time be perceived from the current state of elements which are also travelling through the same time?
To perceive changes in state, you need a datum from outside the time line in which the change occurs.

Easily of you have a memory for reference and a means of perceiving the passing of time. 

The ever present state of the human soul provides such a datum.

A superstition for which you’ve shown no necessity, no justifying reasoning and no evidence.

[Alan Burns]

Easily of you have a memory for reference and a means of perceiving the passing of time. 

Back to basics.
The material human brain comprises lots of material elements which can change state over time.  The passing of time can be detected by perceived changes to the state, but how does a change in state get perceived?  What perceives the change in state?

So what can happen when the material elements in our brain cells change state?
The changes in state can generate further material reactions, but reactions alone do not perceive a change in state - they just react to it, causing another change in state further along the line.  There is no definitive point at which these chains of material reactions can define perception of a change in state.  Reactions cause change in state over time, but perception of these changes in state cannot be perceived by other reactions.

Once a reaction takes place, its prior state does not exist in the physical world.  But the conscious state of our human mind retains memory of prior states.  What comprises our conscious memory?

[torridon]

Back to basics.
The material human brain comprises lots of material elements which can change state over time.  The passing of time can be detected by perceived changes to the state, but how does a change in state get perceived?  What perceives the change in state?

So what can happen when the material elements in our brain cells change state?
The changes in state can generate further material reactions, but reactions alone do not perceive a change in state - they just react to it, causing another change in state further along the line.  There is no definitive point at which these chains of material reactions can define perception of a change in state.  Reactions cause change in state over time, but perception of these changes in state cannot be perceived by other reactions.

Once a reaction takes place, its prior state does not exist in the physical world.  But the conscious state of our human mind retains memory of prior states.  What comprises our conscious memory?

A gazelle perceives the cheetah creeping up on it. If this were not the case, then gazelles would end up as lunch pretty quick, and then cheetahs would all die of starvation. It is reasonable to assume that anything with eyes is enjoying visual perception, and anything with ears is enjoying auditory perception.  This is what eyes and ears do, they enable perception to happen. The fact that gazelles and cheetahs have not gone extinct points to a power symmetry between the perceptual systems of gazelles and cheetahs with each species helping to hone perception in the other.

[Gordon]

Back to basics.
The material human brain comprises lots of material elements which can change state over time.  The passing of time can be detected by perceived changes to the state, but how does a change in state get perceived?  What perceives the change in state?

So what can happen when the material elements in our brain cells change state?
The changes in state can generate further material reactions, but reactions alone do not perceive a change in state - they just react to it, causing another change in state further along the line.  There is no definitive point at which these chains of material reactions can define perception of a change in state.  Reactions cause change in state over time, but perception of these changes in state cannot be perceived by other reactions.

Once a reaction takes place, its prior state does not exist in the physical world.  But the conscious state of our human mind retains memory of prior states.  What comprises our conscious memory?

As ever, Alan, you are tying yourself in fallacious knots, such as in the above giving the fallacy of division an outing (for a nice change), and in continuing to try to force 'perception' and 'reaction' into mutually exclusive categories when they are part of the same paradigm.

When you end with the conclusion "The ever present state of the human soul provides such a datum.", as you did in a recent post (#42680), you shouldn't be surprised when others, like me, look at what you write, perceive it to be nonsense, and then react accordingly.

[Stranger]

Back to basics.
The material human brain comprises lots of material elements which can change state over time.  The passing of time can be detected by perceived changes to the state, but how does a change in state get perceived?  What perceives the change in state?

So what can happen when the material elements in our brain cells change state?
The changes in state can generate further material reactions, but reactions alone do not perceive a change in state - they just react to it, causing another change in state further along the line.  There is no definitive point at which these chains of material reactions can define perception of a change in state.  Reactions cause change in state over time, but perception of these changes in state cannot be perceived by other reactions.

Yet another (long-winded) argument from incredulity with a side helping of baseless assertion and a hint of false dichotomy.

Once a reaction takes place, its prior state does not exist in the physical world.

There is nothing to stop a record being made of the history of previous states.

But the conscious state of our human mind retains memory of prior states.  What comprises our conscious memory?

Is this even a serious question? Do you need help doing an internet search to learn how memories are stored?

>click here<

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Back to basics.

Excellent! I’ve being trying to get you back to basics for what, 100s of post maybe so it’s great news that you now intend to do so. So then, next you’ll finally set out your premises, their rationale, your reasoning and logic that takes your from your premises to your justified conclusions right? It’s been a long time coming, but I’ve got the ginger beer open and a fresh packet of Twiglets to hand so go for it!... 
 

The material human brain comprises lots of material elements which can change state over time.  The passing of time can be detected by perceived changes to the state, but how does a change in state get perceived?  What perceives the change in state?

Aw no Alan, say it ain’t so! That’s not back to basics at all – it’s just you collapsing straight back into an argument from incredulity. You can ask as many how and what questions as you like, and there are answers to them with various levels of completeness. That you don’t know or refuse to look them up though doesn’t thereby open a gap for you to insert whatever superstitions takes your fancy with no necessity, no justifying arguments and no evidence of any kind at all.

You should n know this by now, you really should.   

So what can happen when the material elements in our brain cells change state?
The changes in state can generate further material reactions, but reactions alone do not perceive a change in state - they just react to it, causing another change in state further along the line.  There is no definitive point at which these chains of material reactions can define perception of a change in state.  Reactions cause change in state over time, but perception of these changes in state cannot be perceived by other reactions.

Yet again, perception is an aspect of consciousness which in turn is an emergent property of brains if the only available reasoning and evidence are to be accepted. I know you struggle with the concept, but at some dim level of awareness even you must be able to grasp the basic idea that the experience of decision-making is just as you would expect it to be in a single, integrated reasoning entity.   

Once a reaction takes place, its prior state does not exist in the physical world.  But the conscious state of our human mind retains memory of prior states.  What comprises our conscious memory?

What would be the point of explaining your various mistakes here once again when you’re so resolutely intent on ignoring them?

[Alan Burns]

Yet another (long-winded) argument from incredulity with a side helping of baseless assertion and a hint of false dichotomy.

There is nothing to stop a record being made of the history of previous states.

Any data record is meaningless until it is consciously perceived.

Is this even a serious question? Do you need help doing an internet search to learn how memories are stored?

I am fully aware that what we term as "memory" can be some form of current state which is consciously interpreted to represent past events.
It is conscious interpretation of data which defies the deterministic logic of material behaviour.
There is some confusion between the profound difference between physical reaction and awareness of physical reaction.
A physical reaction alone is meaningless without the means to consciously perceive the change in state produced by the physical reaction.

[Gordon]

Any data record is meaningless until it is consciously perceived.

That sounds awfully like the very obvious.

I am fully aware that what we term as "memory" can be some form of current state which is consciously interpreted to represent past events.

Or put more simply: we can remember some stuff (provided our biology is working).

It is conscious interpretation of data which defies the deterministic logic of material behaviour.

Don't be silly: 'conscious interpretation of data' IS material behaviour (all those wee neurons doing their thing).

There is some confusion between the profound difference between physical reaction and awareness of physical reaction.
A physical reaction alone is meaningless without the means to consciously perceive the change in state produced by the physical reaction.

Luckily for us then we have 'material' biology that can do a spot of perceiving and reacting.

In your desperation to, in essence, claim that squares are really circles you are becoming increasingly infantile.

[Stranger]

Any data record is meaningless until it is consciously perceived.

Depends what you mean by 'meaningless', I guess. Non-human animals clearly have memories but you claim that they don't have the magical self-contradictory soul-thingy that you suggest we have, yet they clearly manage to make use of it. One could also argue that DNA is a record of the past, and it worked just fine before anybody (consciously) understood it.

It is conscious interpretation of data which defies the deterministic logic of material behaviour.

Back to the rather silly foot-stamping - not to mention misrepresentation (the logic is not specifically about material behaviour).

There is some confusion between the profound difference between physical reaction and awareness of physical reaction.
A physical reaction alone is meaningless without the means to consciously perceive the change in state produced by the physical reaction.

Yet another attempt to just assert that a reaction (not necessarily physical) cannot also be a perception. In fact, a perception is, and must be, a reaction to what is perceived.

Not long ago you posted the Mensa puzzle that you'd solved, which must have involved applying logic and reasoning. Can to not see how different your approach to that was was compared to the blind faith, magical thinking, and endless fallacies (basic mistakes in logic) you apply to consciousness and the mind?

[Outrider]

Yes, we can perceive the explanation for why the earth's spin can be detected from an independent datum outside the earth which is not spinning. Remove that datum and there is no perception of spin.

Remove that datum... you aren't 'removing' a datum, you're relocating it to the spinning object, and therefore you have no relative motion - if you want to remove one datum in favour of another you either have to justify why the selection is better in that context or you have to try to establish an absolute point of reference. There are situations where you'd select a datum point within the otherwise spinning frame of reference (to eliminate the complication of accounting for the spin itself) such as measuring relative velocities of objects on Earth, but it's difficult to justify otherwise.

I use this as an illustrative example of the need for an independent datum to detect changes in state.

Except that you aren't - you're saying 'wouldn't it be simpler/nicer' and it would, but it being a nice thing to have doesn't mean that it's a real thing. How would you suggest establishing this absolute reference point? As an example, we have the Greenwich meridian for determining longitude and associated concepts like time zones, but in scientific terms the selection of Greenwich is arbitrary; it doesn't pose any better a selection than any other point from a mathematical point of view, it's just that changing it now would mean rewriting a lot of culturally established processes.

Once an element changes state, it can't detect its previous state.  It only has its current state.

Our lack of a capacity (currently?) doesn't mean impossibility. The fact that we don't currently have a capacity to detect sensory information at variable rates across time may be a hard limit, but our sensory limitation doesn't meant that those time events aren't there.

We can only perceive the earth spinning from a datum which is not spinning.

Actually, no. We are in that spinning datum, and we can perceive of the spin of the Earth by considering the relative positions of other objects. I've never left Earth, I'm always within that spinning reference frame (and within the broader solar system spinning reference frame, and the galactic spinning frame of reference...) and yet I can conceive of the spin of the Earth, and the solar system, and the galaxy.

Now try substituting "spin" with "time".

OK.

How can time be perceived from the current state of elements which are also travelling through the same time?

Indirectly, because we view activity as a rate of change with respect to time. Directly by measuring the time elapsed for objects moving considerably faster than us through space - satellites, for instance.

To perceive changes in state, you need a datum from outside the time line in which the change occurs.

No, you need different behaviour in the frame of reference, you don't need to define some arbitrary 'out of frame of reference' as an absolute reference, you can establish relative behaviours.

The ever present state of the human soul provides such a datum.

How can you demonstrate a soul from outside of your frame of reference of being one?  There is no measurable relative or absolute effect which suggests 'soul' is a reality. You've been making points about demonstrable phenomena and how to detect or establish the extent of them, and suddenly you leap to magic. If I were to replace your suggestion of 'soul' with the ancient Egyptian concept of 'ka' what would you be looking for as an explanatory mechanism to justify the claim?

O.

[Alan Burns]

Depends what you mean by 'meaningless', I guess. Non-human animals clearly have memories but you claim that they don't have the magical self-contradictory soul-thingy that you suggest we have, yet they clearly manage to make use of it.

Observation of animal behaviour shows predictable reactions to sensory data based on instinct and past experience with no role for conscious awareness.  In contrast, observation of human behaviour shows evidence of a profound ability to consciously override the instinctive behaviour needed for evolutionary survival.

One could also argue that DNA is a record of the past, and it worked just fine before anybody (consciously) understood it.

One could also argue that DNA is evidence of a creative power beyond human understanding

Yet another attempt to just assert that a reaction (not necessarily physical) cannot also be a perception. In fact, a perception is, and must be, a reaction to what is perceived.

A reaction is simply a change in state.
A change in state cannot be perceived from that which has changed state.  The change in state over time can only be perceived from an independent datum external to that which changes state.

Not long ago you posted the Mensa puzzle that you'd solved, which must have involved applying logic and reasoning.

I had hoped that some on this forum would be able to demonstrate their conscious abilities needed to solve the puzzle

Can to not see how different your approach to that was was compared to the blind faith, magical thinking, and endless fallacies (basic mistakes in logic) you apply to consciousness and the mind?

All my posts are based on evidence and logical reasoning.
Not fallacies.

I am sorry that you fail to fully comprehend the logic and evidence I put forward.
We only have one life, and it is tragic that so many people fail to see just how precious and meaningful their lives are, and fail to see the ultimate purpose in their lives.

[Stranger]

One could also argue that DNA is evidence of a creative power beyond human understanding

Given that we have plentiful evidence of evolution, where is the argument?

A reaction is simply a change in state.
A change in state cannot be perceived from that which has changed state.  The change in state over time can only be perceived from an independent datum external to that which changes state.

Oh, do stop being silly! A perception is a change in state - from not having perceived something to having done so and have it in memory. Of course a change in state can be perceived from that which changes state if it has memory.

I had hoped that some on this forum would be able to demonstrate their conscious abilities needed to solve the puzzle

Sorry, so this was supposed to be a test? For the record, the answer (assuming the deduction is from the amount given out - the wording was somewhat ambiguous) is £46.95 (95.46 - 1.56 = 93.90; 93.90/2 = 46.95). And I didn't need any magical, nonsensical, self-contradictory version of freedom to work it out. To characterise the disagreement as between conscious ability and inevitable reaction is to entirely miss the point - or misrepresent it. You have never once given a sound argument as to why anything we do needs your impossible, self-contradictory magic.

To return to my point - do you not see the yawing gap between the application of reasoning needed to solve the puzzle and the inane assertions, magical thinking, and endless, mindless repetition you use when addressing your faith and the human mind?  Seriously though, do you really not see it?

All my posts are based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Baseless assertion. I've asked you multiple times to set out a proper, logical argument and you never do. You don't seem to even understand what that would involve. You need to set out some premises, that you think will be agreed, and them some logical steps that lead to a conclusion.

Not fallacies.

Another baseless assertion. People point out your fallacies all the time and you never even acknowledge them. If you think they are not fallacies then why won't engage with those who point them out and address what they are saying? Why just mindlessly repeat them?

If you really think that what you've said isn't a fallacy somebody has accused you of, where are the replies that say something like "No, that isn't an instance of <inset relevant fallacy> because...", followed by some actual logic rather than mere assertion?

I am sorry that you fail to fully comprehend the logic and evidence I put forward.

Just ignoring it when people point out (perceived) problems with what you've said, does nothing for your cause. Your endless repetition just gives the impression that you have no idea what evidence or logic even mean.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Observation of animal behaviour shows predictable reactions to sensory data based on instinct and past experience with no role for conscious awareness.

Do you have any evidence for the remarkable and entirely unsubstantiated assertion, especially as all the available evidence we actually have tells us precisely the opposite of that? Oh, and by the way - if you want to reference "past experience" here that means non-human animals must have memories too, only for some reason you don't think they need a magic man to access them as apparently we must have. Why would that be?

In contrast, observation of human behaviour shows evidence of a profound ability to consciously override the instinctive behaviour needed for evolutionary survival.

See above.

One could also argue that DNA is evidence of a creative power beyond human understanding

No “one” couldn’t. What one could actually do is to assert it, but there’s no argument to justify the assertion, least of all from you.

A reaction is simply a change in state.

Sort of, but ok…

A change in state cannot be perceived from that which has changed state.

Why not?

The change in state over time can only be perceived from an independent datum external to that which changes state.

Yet again...but the phenomenon of perception is itself also a “change of state” as you call it. A change of state and the perception of a change of state are all part of the same determinative continuum, and indeed that’s all they need to be for our experience to be just as it is. You're trying to insert “it’s magic innit” into a gap that doesn’t exist again.   
 

I had hoped that some on this forum would be able to demonstrate their conscious abilities needed to solve the puzzle

“Some on the forum” are more than capable of that. You were using problem solving as an un-argued illustration of your assertion that it must require some non-material magic though, which it does not do at all.   

All my posts are based on evidence and logical reasoning.
Not fallacies.

At what point is it reasonable to deduce that you’re lying rather than just wrong about everything?

First, you have no evidence and logical reasoning at all, or at least none that you’ve been able to produce here. Counter-factual assertions do not constitute evidence and logical reasoning, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.

Second, you really need to understand what logical fallacies actually entail before claiming not to rely on them. Logical fallacies are mistakes in reasoning that nullify the arguments they’re intended to justify. You collapse regularly into a bewildering array of logical fallacies – for example, “I don’t understand how the answer can be X, therefore the answer cannot be X” (one of your favourites) is a fallacy called the argument from personal incredulity. I could write a pamphlet on the fallacies you unwittingly trot out here week in, week out and until you finally address that problem baseless assertions is all you’ll have.     

I am sorry that you fail to fully comprehend the logic and evidence I put forward.

We all “fully comprehend” it – much better than you do in fact. That’s why we also know that it’s wrong.

We only have one life…

Finally, you’ve got something right!

…,and it is tragic that so many people fail to see just how precious and meaningful their lives are…

I think you’ll find that most people see how “precious and meaningful” their own lives are, though I agree that there are some people who don’t feel the same way about the lives of others. 

…and fail to see the ultimate purpose in their lives.

And now you’re back into magic fantasy land. There is no “ultimate purpose”: ultimately life – yours, mine and everyone else’s – is most likely purposeless. Sorry if you find that hard dose of reality difficult to process though.   

[SusanDoris]

It's more than enough to make you weep, isn't it!! I'm an incurable optimist, but there's one thing I'm not optimistic about and that is AB finallly breaking through the just about impenetrable barrier he has around himself.

[torridon]

Observation of animal behaviour shows predictable reactions to sensory data based on instinct and past experience with no role for conscious awareness.
..

Predictability is a sliding scale, some behaviours are easier to predict than others.  It is not an either/or. But we can be sure that consciousness does play a role in all complex animal and human behaviours.  Have you ever seen a fox chasing a rabbit whilst fast asleep ? You need to be fully conscious for most complex behaviours.

[ProfessorDavey]

Observation of animal behaviour shows predictable reactions to sensory data based on instinct and past experience with no role for conscious awareness.  In contrast, observation of human behaviour shows evidence of a profound ability to consciously override the instinctive behaviour needed for evolutionary survival.

AB - you do realise that humans are ... in fact ... err ... animals.

While I accept that the type of conscious awareness associated with high brain function may not be present in all animal species it certainly isn't limited solely to humans.

And, of course, the whole point of the higher consciousness that humans (and some other species) have developed is that it provides clear evolutionary advantage, which is why it is selected for in evolutionary terms.