Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

There is nothing simple about the consciously driven act of comparing.
For a memory of a previous state to exist, It has to have been consciously perceived in a meaningful way and there has to me a means of storing the conceived meaning in a format which can be recalled at will into a current state of consciousness.  Then there is the process of consciously manipulating the awareness of the current state with the recalled awareness of the previous state in order to achieve the desired comparison.

For crying out loud, Alan: your biology handles this routinely, and that I can remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, or that I found a particular whisky is especially suited to my taste when buying a bottle, is perfectly consistent with how brains work and is in that sense unremarkable.
 

And you seriously believe that all this can be achieved by the inevitable consequences to physically defined material reactions to past events?

Yes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am sorry if I am not communicating my thoughts very well

That’s not your problem. Your problem is that you’re communicating them well enough for reasoning people to know that your thoughts are wrong.

The reasons they are wrong are clearly and consistently set out for you. That you will not or cannot address those reasons just makes you appear dishonest or cognitively impaired. Or both.

Can you see why you engender such frustration here? You repeatedly make mistakes in reasoning and in fact, and when those mistakes are explained to you instead of dealing with the problem (as an honest or aware person would) you just ignore them, and then repeat exactly the same mistakes in reasoning and fact a bit later on. What do you hope to achieve with this behaviour – that people will just pretend that your reasoning isn’t all over the place and accept the claims and assertions it’s intended to justify?

Why on earth would you think someone possessed of critical faculties would ever do such a thing?   

[torridon]

By "change in state" I am referring to what is presumed to be the material reactions involved in human conscious perception.
For conscious perception to attain meaning, we need a means of being aware of a change in state from a previous state.  Without this awareness, any change in state is just another reaction which obliterates the state of previous reactions.  I am postulating the concept that material reactions alone can never define conscious awareness.  This is not just personal incredulity based upon a religious bias - it is a logical deduction based upon the limitations of what can be achieved by physical reactions alone.

It boins down to the profound difference between awareness of reactions and consequences of reactions

Well you can postulate as much as you like, but without any evidence to back it up all your postulations are pretty worthless. I could equally well postulate that if you dig down a couple of metres, we would discover that the Moon is in fact made of green cheese.  After all the Apollo astronauts never dug down much below the surface to check. 

All the evidence we have to date suggests that mental states do in fact derive from 'material reactions'.  Mind does somehow derive from matter. We might not yet fully understand how this happens, but clearly it does, somehow. An enquiring mind would want to understand how this happens, not take refuge in magical thinking underwritten by a doggedly fixed nineteenth century notion of the nature of matter, like you are some sort of expert in the fundamental nature of reality from which our everyday notions of space and time and matter emerge.  Understanding these things is always going to be a work in progress, and progress is made by those who approach with an enquiring mind, not one locked into earlier ways of thinking.

[ProfessorDavey]

For conscious perception to attain meaning, we need a means of being aware of a change in state from a previous state.  Without this awareness, any change in state is just another reaction which obliterates the state of previous reactions.

But what you describe as 'awareness' is merely a physiological response to further reactions that go on within our body. It isn't something 'magical' that sits outside of the (albeit rather complicated) biochemistry within our bodies.

[Alan Burns]

All the evidence we have to date suggests that mental states do in fact derive from 'material reactions'.

The elusive evidence is the fact that no scientist has shown how conscious awareness can be replicated in a laboratory.
If the unguided forces of nature can bring about the conscious awareness in human beings, it should be feasible for intelligent humans to replicate the process.
Why am I so certain that this will never happen?

[Stranger]

The elusive evidence is the fact that no scientist has shown how conscious awareness can be replicated in a laboratory.
If the unguided forces of nature can bring about the conscious awareness in human beings, it should be feasible for intelligent humans to replicate the process.
Why am I so certain that this will never happen?

Blind faith would be my guess.

This is basically an argument from ignorance fallacy: "we don't know how to do this, so it's must be impossible". You remember when you said that all your posts were based on evidence and logical reasoning, not fallacies (#42694)? Now is your chance to show how this is not actually a fallacy as it appears......

[BeRational]

The elusive evidence is the fact that no scientist has shown how conscious awareness can be replicated in a laboratory.
If the unguided forces of nature can bring about the conscious awareness in human beings, it should be feasible for intelligent humans to replicate the process.
Why am I so certain that this will never happen?

Here is a link to things that others (including Einstein) said would never happen. Spoiler alert, they were wrong!
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science/

[torridon]

The elusive evidence is the fact that no scientist has shown how conscious awareness can be replicated in a laboratory.
If the unguided forces of nature can bring about the conscious awareness in human beings, it should be feasible for intelligent humans to replicate the process.
Why am I so certain that this will never happen?

There are lots of things we haven't replicated under laboratory conditions yet.  There were lots of things in the past we believed impossible, but through persistence, we came to figure them out. Charles Darwin knew nothing of genetics yet he was honest to enough to see that varying characteristics are indeed passed from generation to generation somehow, and this results in speciation and diversity; just because he didn't know the mechanism, the detail of how it happens, did not stop him from bearing witness to the bigger truth of the matter. We are at a position like Darwin was in 150 years ago now in respect of our understanding of how mind emerges from matter. Are you always going to be a nay-sayer, hiding in denial, or can you bring yourself to admit that this is what the evidence clearly points to, this is the bigger picture, and we will make progress in understanding thanks to those who keep an open and enquiring mind. Nay-sayers contribute nothing.

[Gordon]

The elusive evidence is the fact that no scientist has shown how conscious awareness can be replicated in a laboratory.

No scientist fully understands gravity: but then they understand enough to know that stepping out of a 4th floor window won't end well.

If the unguided forces of nature can bring about the conscious awareness in human beings, it should be feasible for intelligent humans to replicate the process.

Stop stamping your feet: it's childish you know.

Why am I so certain that this will never happen?

That would be because in trying to accommodate your religion your thinking has been screwed up, hence your fondness for fallacies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The elusive evidence is the fact that no scientist has shown how conscious awareness can be replicated in a laboratory.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You should know this by now.

If the unguided forces of nature can bring about the conscious awareness in human beings, it should be feasible for intelligent humans to replicate the process.

Why? “The unguided forces of nature” as you put it produce all manner of vast, complicated, intricate, unfathomable phenomena that we can’t replicate (and indeed likely many more we don’t even know about yet). Unless you now think we’re omniscient, you’ve just posted a prime candidate for submission to the “Fundies say the Darndest Things site”:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fundies_Say_the_Darndest_Things

Why am I so certain that this will never happen?

Because your critical faculties have been wrecked by blind faith seems the most likely explanation.

[ProfessorDavey]

The elusive evidence is the fact that no scientist has shown how conscious awareness can be replicated in a laboratory.

So what - there are countless things that haven't been replicated in a laboratory. That doesn't mean that we don't have a good understanding of how the underlying physiology works, just that we are not able to replicate complex in vivo (in the body) physiology within a simple laboratory environment. And off course we don't understand everything yet which is why neuroscientists and other bioscientists are working tirelessly to understand more. But not yet understanding something doesn't mean you ascribe god, or woo, or magic to explain our lack of knowledge - to apply god of the gaps to our lack of understanding is intellectually bankrupt.

[Alan Burns]

So what - there are countless things that haven't been replicated in a laboratory. That doesn't mean that we don't have a good understanding of how the underlying physiology works, just that we are not able to replicate complex in vivo (in the body) physiology within a simple laboratory environment. And off course we don't understand everything yet which is why neuroscientists and other bioscientists are working tirelessly to understand more. But not yet understanding something doesn't mean you ascribe god, or woo, or magic to explain our lack of knowledge - to apply god of the gaps to our lack of understanding is intellectually bankrupt.

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humanity had come a long way and no longer needed God.  So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.  The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you.  We’re to the point where we can clone people, manipulate atoms, build molecules, fly through space, and do many other miraculous things.   So why don’t you just go away and mind your own business from now on?” 
            God listened very patiently and kindly to the man.  After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well.  How about this?  Before I go, let’s say we have a human-making contest.”  To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”
            “But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
            The scientist nodded, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged a finger at him and said, “Uh, uh, uh.  Put that down.  You go find your own dirt.”

[Stranger]

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humanity had come a long way and no longer needed God.  So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.  The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you.  We’re to the point where we can clone people, manipulate atoms, build molecules, fly through space, and do many other miraculous things.   So why don’t you just go away and mind your own business from now on?”
            God listened very patiently and kindly to the man.  After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well.  How about this?  Before I go, let’s say we have a human-making contest.”  To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”
            “But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
            The scientist nodded, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged a finger at him and said, “Uh, uh, uh.  Put that down.  You go find your own dirt.”

I guess it was easier to post this kind of trite fantasy than actually address the points that have been made or even point out why what you last posted wasn't a fallacy as it appeared to be (as you've claimed you don't use fallacies).

[BeRational]

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humanity had come a long way and no longer needed God.  So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.  The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you.  We’re to the point where we can clone people, manipulate atoms, build molecules, fly through space, and do many other miraculous things.   So why don’t you just go away and mind your own business from now on?” 
            God listened very patiently and kindly to the man.  After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well.  How about this?  Before I go, let’s say we have a human-making contest.”  To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”
            “But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
            The scientist nodded, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged a finger at him and said, “Uh, uh, uh.  Put that down.  You go find your own dirt.”

Did that really happen or is it just a comforting story you tell yourself and you think it is deep and meaningful?

[Gordon]

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humanity had come a long way and no longer needed God.  So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.  The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you.  We’re to the point where we can clone people, manipulate atoms, build molecules, fly through space, and do many other miraculous things.   So why don’t you just go away and mind your own business from now on?” 
            God listened very patiently and kindly to the man.  After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well.  How about this?  Before I go, let’s say we have a human-making contest.”  To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”
            “But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
            The scientist nodded, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged a finger at him and said, “Uh, uh, uh.  Put that down.  You go find your own dirt.”

This sounds like a rejected script from Jackanory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This sounds like a rejected script from Jackanory.

I think you are talking about ''the God Delusion''

[Alan Burns]

“The unguided forces of nature” as you put it produce all manner of vast, complicated, intricate, unfathomable phenomena that we can’t replicate (and indeed likely many more we don’t even know about yet)

You seem very sure that all this can be generated by the unguided, purposeless forces of nature.
Have you ever considered that there might be a more feasible explanation?
Can the concepts of guidance and purpose exist outside the realms of our limited perception?
Could the unfathomable complexity of the human mind be evidence of a creative force beyond human understanding?

[torridon]

You seem very sure that all this can be generated by the unguided, purposeless forces of nature.
Have you ever considered that there might be a more feasible explanation?
Can the concepts of guidance and purpose exist outside the realms of our limited perception?
Could the unfathomable complexity of the human mind be evidence of a creative force beyond human understanding?

The idea that complexity must have been 'created' by something complex is not a feasible explanation.  It is a self-refuting cop out, it implies an impossible infinite regress.  The way to understand complexity is in terms of how it arises from simplicity, ie from first principles, from the bottom up.

[Gordon]

You seem very sure that all this can be generated by the unguided, purposeless forces of nature.

That is what the evidence to date suggests.

Have you ever considered that there might be a more feasible explanation?

For something to be more "feasible" than current knowledge its feasibility would require clearly set out methods of investigation - and on that basis 'God' can be dismissed, as things stand.

Can the concepts of guidance and purpose exist outside the realms of our limited perception?

You're now indulging in the fallacy of reification.

Could the unfathomable complexity of the human mind be evidence of a creative force beyond human understanding?

Not on the basis of this comment of yours: which again confirms that your personal incredulity is getting the better of you.

[Stranger]

You seem very sure that all this can be generated by the unguided, purposeless forces of nature.

That's what the evidence suggests.

Can the concepts of guidance and purpose exist outside the realms of our limited perception?

Sort of. Purpose emerges from evolution. A trait will spread through a population by natural selection because those individuals with it survive and reproduce more than those without it. However, that also means that it serves some purpose that aids survival and reproduction in the context of the environment. No mind is needed to conceive of those purposes - they are what Daniel Dennett calls 'free-floating rationales'.

Could the unfathomable complexity of the human mind be evidence of a creative force beyond human understanding?

No. We have a perfectly good explanation of how brains evolved, that requires no outside 'creative force', and further good evidence that minds are what brains do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem very sure that all this can be generated by the unguided, purposeless forces of nature.

Depends what you mean by “very sure”, but as that’s what all the evidence available to me indicates I’m as sure of that as I’m sure that germs rather than evil spirits cause diseases, that gravity rather than pixies pulling stuff down with strings causes objects to fall etc.

More to the point though, as that’s the only evidence that’s available to you too why aren’t you equally sure of that?   

Have you ever considered that there might be a more feasible explanation?

In principle, I’m always willing to consider more feasible explanations for anything. As I don’t know of one though, there’s nothing to consider.

If however by “more feasible” what you actually mean is your personal suite of non-defined, non-justified and self-contradictory superstitions that you attempt to validate only with false reasoning (that you never correct even when the fallacies are explained to you) then your ab initio assumption of "more feasible" is a busted flush.       
 

Can the concepts of guidance and purpose exist outside the realms of our limited perception?

Your inarticularcy is letting you down again. The “concepts” do exist within “the realms of our limited perception” because at a conceptual level we both know what it is you’re trying to assert to be the case. If you’re trying to ask though whether a phenomenon of “guidance and purpose” could exist “outside the realms of our limited perception” then, inasmuch as anything could so exist notwithstanding the complete absence of evidence for it, yes. As it’d be “outside the realms of our limited perception” however, you wouldn’t know about it either.     

Could the unfathomable complexity of the human mind be evidence of a creative force beyond human understanding?

No. To be evidence for something the facts or information must validate the conclusion. The “unfathomable complexity of the human mind” on the other hand isn’t evidence for anything. Your mistake here is not understanding what the term “evidence” requires.

Oh, and by the way: your last several replies here have relied on a series of basic mistakes in reasoning. Others have taken the time and trouble to correct you on them, yet not once have you bothered to address the corrections you’ve been given. This is a type of dishonesty and it does you no credit at all.       

[Alan Burns]

The way to understand complexity is in terms of how it arises from simplicity, ie from first principles, from the bottom up.

Like the intelligently guided development of the motor car, or aeroplanes, or computer technology ......

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Like the intelligently guided development of the motor car, or aeroplanes, or computer technology ......

No, not like that at all. That’s just the Paley’s watch mistake:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

Still, as you seem to be entirely indifferent to having your reliance on fallacious arguments explained to you not doubt you’ll ignore this one just as you ignore all the others too.

[Stranger]

Like the intelligently guided development of the motor car, or aeroplanes, or computer technology ......

Yet another fallacy. This time false analogy.

[Gordon]

Like the intelligently guided development of the motor car, or aeroplanes, or computer technology ......

I see your fallacy-fest continues unabated, Alan.