Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Just to clarify - my concept of freedom means that under identical circumstances I could have used my God given gift of free will to have chosen differently.  In other words, my choices are not dictated by inevitable, unavoidable reactions to prior events, but by a means of consciously interacting with the laws of nature rather than simply reacting.  I fully understand that from a purely materialist view, I could not have chosen differently because a material brain has to function in accordance with the laws of physics.  What I am pointing out is that the perception of our freedom to choose and consciously guide our own thoughts is a reality - not just a feeling. 
..

If you could have chosen differently in identical circumstances, that would imply your decision making is random.  That doesn't work; humans would have long ago gone extinct were that how our minds worked. Decision making has to be consistent with both the laws of Nature and with principles of logic.

[Alan Burns]

If you could have chosen differently in identical circumstances, that would imply your decision making is random.  That doesn't work; humans would have long ago gone extinct were that how our minds worked. Decision making has to be consistent with both the laws of Nature and with principles of logic.

You do not seem to grasp the concept of conscious control.  It is not random.  Neither is it just an inevitable reaction to past events.  The reality we all perceive is that our conscious awareness exists and acts in the present.  It defines the present.  It is only when you try to define everything in material terms that you come up with the "if it is not pre determined it must be random" conundrum.  You may well conclude that your perception of conscious freedom is just an illusion in order to fit in with the workings of a material brain.  Or you may conclude that your freedom is a reality which can't be defined in material terms.  In order to reach one of these conclusions - you will need to to use your conscious control to apply whatever logic is needed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The reality we all perceive...

The reality we all perceive is that the Earth is flat too. Your mistake here is just to assume that the "evidence" of perception describes reality accurately, rather than provides a superficially satisfactory explanation that's good enough for day-to-day existence. This is an especially egregious mistake when perception-derived reality models are flatly contradicted by reason and evidence. 

   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The reality we all perceive is that the Earth is flat too. Your mistake here is just to assume that the "evidence" of perception describes reality accurately, rather than provides a superficially satisfactory explanation that's good enough for day-to-day existence. This is an especially egregious mistake when perception-derived reality models are flatly contradicted by reason and evidence. 
 

And the reason and evidence you continue to ignore or dismiss is your own consciously driven ability to reason.

[torridon]

You do not seem to grasp the concept of conscious control.  It is not random.  Neither is it just an inevitable reaction to past events.  The reality we all perceive is that our conscious awareness exists and acts in the present.  It defines the present.  It is only when you try to define everything in material terms that you come up with the "if it is not pre determined it must be random" conundrum.  You may well conclude that your perception of conscious freedom is just an illusion in order to fit in with the workings of a material brain.  ..

Ultimately it is not about 'material' things, it is about logic. To make a choice requires a reason for it not to be random.  This is merely definitional.  If you could wind back time to the exact same circumstance and you made a different choice second time around, that defines your choice as random.  Making choices for no reason would see us exiting the gene pool pretty quickly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And the reason and evidence you continue to ignore or dismiss is your own consciously driven ability to reason.

I just explained to you where you went wrong. Why have you just scurried back to the same vapid assertion that's been falsified countless times here rather than address the explanation you were given?

Can you understand that reality-derived reality models are often misleading?

Can you understand that the absence of an explanation for a phenomenon does not thereby justify a different explanation?

Can you understand that just asserting a "concept" does not thereby make it a fact?

Can you understand anything?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you understand that the absence of an explanation for a phenomenon does not thereby justify a different explanation?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[Alan Burns]

Ultimately it is not about 'material' things, it is about logic. To make a choice requires a reason for it not to be random.

Of course there is a reason for the choices we make.
The question to consider is whether the reason is defined by past events which are beyond our conscious control?
Or does the reason emanate from our present state of conscious awareness which is under our conscious control?

[torridon]

Of course there is a reason for the choices we make.
The question to consider is whether the reason is defined by past events which are beyond our conscious control?
Or does the reason emanate from our present state of conscious awareness which is under our conscious control?

Our current mind state is a consequence of the things that led to it.  You cannot just choose what mind state to be in.  It doesn't work like that, not for you, and not for me.

[Alan Burns]

Our current mind state is a consequence of the things that led to it.  You cannot just choose what mind state to be in.  It doesn't work like that, not for you, and not for me.

It works for me 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

AB seems to think that the failure to provide him with a satisfactory material explanation for consciousness in some unexplained way supports his case for a supernatural one (that he calls a “soul”) – see Reply 44273. It does no such thing, any more than the absence of an explanation for thunder validated Norse beliefs about Thor. This should be obvious to him (not least because it's been explained so many times), but he returns to this same mistake in reasoning over and over again nonetheless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

AB seems to think that the failure to provide him with a satisfactory material explanation for consciousness in some unexplained way supports his case for a supernatural one (that he calls a “soul”) – see Reply 44273. It does no such thing, any more than the absence of an explanation for thunder validated Norse beliefs about Thor. This should be obvious to him (not least because it's been explained so many times), but he returns to this same mistake in reasoning over and over again nonetheless.

So long as he is not making the NPF, I don't think there is a bar on making a case for a non materialist argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So long as he is not making the NPF, I don't think there is a bar on making a case for a non materialist argument.

You’ve missed the point. The non-materialist argument for “soul” he was attempting was that he hadn’t received a sufficiently convincing materialist explanation (for him) for consciousness (“This is because I have never had a feasible explanation for how…” etc). That’s a false argument, for reasons that have been explained to him multiple times.

If he wants to make an argument for his notion “soul” then he needs to do it on its own terms and from the ground up (see thunder and Thor again).   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’ve missed the point. The non-materialist argument for “soul” he was attempting was that he hadn’t received a sufficiently convincing materialist explanation (for him) for consciousness (“This is because I have never had a feasible explanation for how…” etc). That’s a false argument, for reasons that have been explained to him multiple times.

If he wants to make an argument for his notion “soul” then he needs to do it on its own terms and from the ground up (see thunder and Thor again).

I think we can split the material theories of consciousness into mechanistic, complexity theories and emergent theories and then other theories that might (as you have) be described as supernatural. I personally think mechanistic and complexity theories of consciousness hit the buffers when it comes to distinguishing between intelligence and consciousness. I don't have a problem with material theories per se but I agree they are as yet insufficiently convincing but if there is a material solution then it is emergent. I wouldn't want to make an argument from incredulity.
To accuse Alan of making a case for the non material from not believing in the material solution is humbug coming from people who make the case from the material because they cannot believe in a supernatural explanation I would have thought but if you're not doing that, then fine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we can split the material theories of consciousness into mechanistic, complexity theories and emergent theories and then other theories that might as you have be described as supernatural.

Actually we can’t because claims of a “supernatural” theory would require both the demonstration that there is a supernatural to begin with, and then a method to validate the resultant claims but ok… 

I personally think mechanistic and complexity theories of consciousness hit the buffers when it comes to distinguishing between intelligence and consciousness. I don't have a problem with material theories per se but I agree they are as yet insufficiently convincing but if there is a material solution then it is emergent. I wouldn't want to make an argument from incredulity.

None of which is relevant. Whether science had provided a complete explanation, a partial explanation or no explanation whatsoever for consciousness would tell you precisely nothing about whether or not “soul” is a legitimate explanation (again, see thunder and Thor).

To accuse Alan of making a case for the non material from not believing in the material solution is humbug…

Then you haven’t been paying attention. That’s exactly what he does – over and over again in fact. When this mistake is explained to him though, he never addresses the rebuttal.

…coming from people who make the case from the material because they cannot believe in a supernatural explanation I would have thought but if your not doing that then fine.

Interesting combination of the tu quoque fallacy and the straw man fallacy there. Has anyone here ever done that? I haven’t seen it. 

[Alan Burns]

Can you understand anything?

To understand anything you need the conscious freedom to contemplate what exists in your conscious awareness.
Understanding does not just fall out from past material reactions beyond our conscious control.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually we can’t because claims of a “supernatural” theory would require both the demonstration that there is a supernatural to begin with, and then a method to validate the resultant claims
 

Not really because you can't actually prove materially that materialism excludes non materialism is demonstrably true either, so philosophically, I'm not sure you can legitimately make that challenge.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To understand anything you need the conscious freedom to contemplate what exists in your conscious awareness.
Understanding does not just fall out from past material reactions beyond our conscious control.

I hear the unqualified assertion. Now explain why not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not really because you can't actually prove materially that materialism excludes non materialism is demonstrably true either, so philosophically, I'm not sure you can legitimately make that challenge.

You’re making the shifting of the burden of proof mistake again. Materialist theories do not depend on the falsification of claims of the supernatural; it’s for the supernaturalist to demonstrate that there is a supernatural to begin with.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’re making the shifting of the burden of proof mistake again. Materialist theories do not depend on the falsification of claims of the supernatural; it’s for the supernaturalist to demonstrate that there is a supernatural to begin with.

No, I'm just pointing out that you are trying to exclude supernatural arguments from a position of materialism and the lack of material evidence, an argument which is both circular and hypocritical since there is no material evidence on which you can justify that attempt. The materialist then has an equal burden to prove materialism.


At the moment materialist solutions are, I would say inadequate at explaining consciousness but scientists will and should carry on trying, it's their job.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, I'm just pointing out that you are trying to exclude supernatural arguments from a position of materialism and the lack of material evidence, an argument which is both circular and hypocritical since there is no material evidence on which you can justify that attempt.

You’re still falling into the shifting of the burden of proof trap. I’m not trying to exclude supernatural “arguments” (which are actually assertions rather than arguments in any case) “from a position of materialism and the lack of material evidence” at all. I’m just explaining that if someone wants to posit a “supernatural theory” then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate it. In other words, until that's done I can exclude it simply on the basis that it's white noise and not because of a materialist perspective.     

The materialist then has an equal burden to prove materialism.

You’ve had that clap trap rebutted countless times. There’s no burden of proof to “prove” materialism at all because materialism confines itself to functional, demonstrable truths – not to claims of the absolute, or proofs. We can each jump out of the window, and we can both thereby demonstrate gravity. That’s not a claim though of a proof that hitting the deck is necessarily a universal truth. Conversely however, there are no methods at all to demonstrate supernatural truth claims.

You really should understand this by now given how many times it’s been explained to you.       

At the moment materialist solutions are, I would say inadequate at explaining consciousness but scientists will and should carry on trying, it's their job.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with AB thinking that the absence of an explanation (or of a compete explanation) for consciousness from science in some unexplained way validates his supernatural claim “soul”. That’s the point. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’re still falling into the shifting of the burden of proof trap.

As far as I am aware I am not making the case for a soul and have said there may be a material explanation of consciousness but we have not had it.     

You’ve had that clap trap rebutted countless times. There’s no burden of proof to “prove” materialism at all because materialism confines itself to functional, demonstrable truths – not to claims of the absolute, or proofs.

Whatever materialism is confining itself to then you keep going beyond. And you're gussying up of methodological materialism into philosophical materialism and then denying it when caught has been pointed out to YOU many times. Materialism doesn't ask for supernaturalism to prove itself because materialism doesn't..... but you do. You then like a coward hide behind any virtues materialism has.

And once again you have shown you don't know the difference between the methodological and the philosophical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As far as I am aware I am not making the case for a soul and have said there may be a material explanation of consciousness but we have not had it.

But you did say “I'm just pointing out that you are trying to exclude supernatural arguments from a position of materialism and the lack of material evidence, an argument which is both circular and hypocritical since there is no material evidence on which you can justify that attempt”, which was an attempt to critique my supposed attempt at taking on the burden of proof (on the ground that materialism is the wrong tool for the job). That’s the point – I wasn’t taking on the burden of proof at all, whether with materialist means or with any other. The burden of proof to validate supernatural claims rests with the person making them, not with the people to whom the assertions are made.

Try to understand this.

Whatever materialism is confining itself to you keep going beyond.

That’s not true.

And your gussying up of methodological materialism into philosophical materialism and then denying it when caught has been pointed out to YOU many times.

Except of course I’ve never done that and moreover “philosophical materialism” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean, which has been pointed out to YOU even more many times. Come to think of it, I even remember the hilarious time long ago you referred to me Wiki about that, only for Wiki to confirm that it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean either. What you’re actually thinking of here is something like physicalism which, so far as I know, no-one here advocates.

Nice try though. 

Materialism doesn't ask for supernaturalism to prove itself because it can't..... but you do. You then like a coward hide behind any virtues materialism has.

More lying won’t help you either. I don’t ask for anyone to prove anything. Never have. What I do ask though is for the supernaturalist to demonstrate his claims such that they can be distinguished from any other supernatural claims, and indeed from just guessing. Which, speaking of cowardice, is when you always run away remember?   

And once again you have shown you don't know the difference between the methodological and the philosophical.

Such a shame that you have no concept of irony. Anyway – I’m quite aware of the difference between them; the problem here though remains that you don’t.

By all means try again though, ideally once you’ve looked them up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just to help you out a little (again):

Philosophical materialism: “Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.”

Physicalism: “Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical.”

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

Also: “Methodological materialism is a defining characteristic of science in the same way that "methodological woodism" is a defining characteristic of carpentry. Science seeks to construct natural explanations for natural phenomena in the same way that carpentry seeks to construct objects out of wood. In operating in this manner neither discipline denies the existence of supernatural forces or sheet plastics, their usefulness or validity. The use of either supernatural forces or sheet plastics is simply distinguished as belonging to separate disciplines.”

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Materialism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But you did say “I'm just pointing out that you are trying to exclude supernatural arguments from a position of materialism and the lack of material evidence, an argument which is both circular and hypocritical since there is no material evidence on which you can justify that attempt”, which was an attempt to critique my supposed attempt at taking on the burden of proof (on the ground that materialism is the wrong tool for the job). That’s the point – I wasn’t taking on the burden of proof at all, whether with materialist means or with any other. The burden of proof to validate supernatural claims rests with the person making them, not with the people to whom the assertions are made.

Try to understand this.

That’s not true.

Except of course I’ve never done that and moreover “philosophical materialism” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean, which has been pointed out to YOU even more many times. Come to think of it, I even remember the hilarious time long ago you referred to me Wiki about that, only for Wiki to confirm that it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean either. What you’re actually thinking of here is something like physicalism which, so far as I know, no-one here advocates.

Nice try though. 

More lying won’t help you either. I don’t ask for anyone to prove anything. Never have. What I do ask though is for the supernaturalist to demonstrate his claims such that they can be distinguished from any other supernatural claims, and indeed from just guessing. Which, speaking of cowardice, is when you always run away remember?   

Such a shame that you have no concept of irony. Anyway – I’m quite aware of the difference between them; the problem here though remains that you don’t.

By all means try again though, ideally once you’ve looked them up.

Sorry , Materialism makes no judgements on the supernatural, does not request proof of the supernatural...but you do. And when you do, you are therefore not acting from the materialist position but something different, You then have a burden to justify your position. You also seem to have abandoned the notion of material when referring and/or not referring to the concept when using the words, truth, functional etc.

Material things should be penetrable to material methods. Universe has been around for ever?, can't penetrate that with materialism, universe popped out of nothing, can't penetrate that with materialism, universe created? Can't penetrate that with materialism. So there is a philosophical case for the supernatural so a supernatural argument is presumably makeable.