Searching for GOD...

[Sriram]

Agree most of that; unconscious mind is the business end, the backroom place where work gets done; conscious mind is front desk. However I don't see anything mysterious about that, no need to enlist supernatural agency to explain it. It is just biochemistry in action, it is physics in action, it is cause and effect in action. That minds function in this manner is inevitable, any other modus operandi would be unfeasible.  We have no evidence to suggest something inexplicable or supernatural going on.

Now that we agree on a powerful unconscious mind....we need to now see if individual unconscious minds are connected in some way, such that coordination is possible within the eco system....

[torridon]

The player still has the conscious choice whether to return a drop shot or slam it.

There isn't much time in high speed sports to think about how to return a ball.  If we stopped to think about it, we'd surely lose the point.  Our perceptions and motor responses are running ahead of conscious thought in such situations.  However, irrespective of how much conscious thought goes into making a return, whether we go for a slam or a drop shot, there will always be a reason for that.  There is always a 'because' in there somewhere, otherwise our returns would be random and nobody wins tennis matches by making random muscle movements.  In fact, in such a scenario, more likely first aiders would be summoned and the player stretchered off, suspecting an epileptic fit or suchlike.

[ekim]

Now that we agree on a powerful unconscious mind....we need to now see if individual unconscious minds are connected in some way, such that coordination is possible within the eco system....

I think that this has already been established by using conditioning processes.  Religious persuasion, mass marketing and political indoctrination have been using it for many years.  Now that the World Wide Web is established it has a variety of spiders called 'Influencers' that continue the process.

[Alan Burns]

There isn't much time in high speed sports to think about how to return a ball.  If we stopped to think about it, we'd surely lose the point.  Our perceptions and motor responses are running ahead of conscious thought in such situations.  However, irrespective of how much conscious thought goes into making a return, whether we go for a slam or a drop shot, there will always be a reason for that.  There is always a 'because' in there somewhere, otherwise our returns would be random and nobody wins tennis matches by making random muscle movements.  In fact, in such a scenario, more likely first aiders would be summoned and the player stretchered off, suspecting an epileptic fit or suchlike.

The "because" simply relates to what you consciously choose, not the pre determined reactions of material elements.
I presume you had plenty of time to consciously think up this reply (looked like you cherry picked what appeared to be the easiest point to answer ).  If all this occurred in subconscious brain activity, what do you think was the means by which this activity gets directed to reach a verifiable conclusion?

[torridon]

The "because" simply relates to what you consciously choose, not the pre determined reactions of material elements.
..

All this does is relocate the centre of decision making from a mind, to a mythical soul. The logic remains the same, the choice we eventually make is a consequence of whichever determinants gave rise to it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Torri,

All this does is relocate the centre of decision making from a mind, to a mythical soul. The logic remains the same, the choice we eventually make is a consequence of whichever determinants gave rise to it.

He’s been told this already countless times, but you're banging your head against a brick wall – in reply he just repeats the same wrongness over and over again:

1. I don’t understand how consciousness can be material, therefore consciousness can't be material.

2. Therefore consciousness must be supernatural.

3. A supernatural explanation would require an entity to make the decisions, therefore “soul”.
 
4. I have no idea how a soul would resolve the same problems I think there to be with a material explanation for consciousness, but I don’t care about that.

5. Repeat. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For thinking, logic and maths.

All happening in the subconscious apparently....and it's what computers do quite happily without being actually aware of it. So thanks for your suggestion, but no thanks as they say.

Torridon's description of the unconscious is not really right. The unconscious mind does not do any maths or solve any equations when serving or returning a tennis ball, just as an apple falling from a tree does not calculate the speed at which it will hit the ground. The mechanisms it uses to determine its response are entirely non-mathematical.

No you are right my understanding is that it's all handled by the cerebellum so no thing required.

The "front desk" ability has developed because consciousness aids well-being in situations that the unconscious does not deal with well.

Like what though, I'm minded of the musical ''My Fair Lady'' when Professor Higgins has a lightning moment of consciousness that he is in fact in love with Eliza and waxes lyrical about having grown accustomed to her face something his unconscious had registered and was processing before he was consciously aware.     

You say the garage does not need a front desk as you can just call the engineer - but the scenario is much more complex: there are many customers - not just you, engineers time is best spent on their job - not answering calls, scheduling work, billing and all the rest. Not having a front desk may work for small enterprises, but all large ones choose to have one.

But the point I was making is that that work could be done in the workshop without a front of house.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. I don’t understand how consciousness can be material,

And neither do you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And neither do you.

It can be (or, more accurately, could be) in principle at least because consciousness aligns well with the well-understood phenomenon of emergence. Until someone ever comes up with a good reason to exclude that explanation (AB just cries “it’s impossible” over and over again, but offers no reasoning to support that assertion), I see no reason to exclude it either.

That’s not the point though. The point – which has been explained to AB countless times without rebuttal (he just ignores it) – is that no matter whether the answer to “how would a material model of consciousness work?” is “here’s a substantial answer”, “here’s a partial answer” or “I have no answer at all” none of them would justify one fraction of an iota of a smidgin of the consequent claim “so it must be supernatural then”. At the very best (for AB) it would give him a “don’t know”, which no matter how much he uses that as his launch pad for his argument from ignorance/incredulity rationale is still false reasoning. 

I’ve tried to explain this to him many times and in a variety of ways but it always falls on deaf ears.             

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It can be (or, more accurately, could be) in principle at least because consciousness aligns well with the well-understood phenomenon of emergence. Until someone ever comes up with a good reason to exclude that explanation (AB just cries “it’s impossible” over and over again, but offers no reasoning to support that assertion), I see no reason to exclude it either.

That’s not the point though. The point – which has been explained to AB countless times without rebuttal (he just ignores it) – is that no matter whether the answer to “how would a material model of consciousness work?” is “here’s a substantial answer”, “here’s a partial answer” or “I have no answer at all” none of them would justify one fraction of an iota of a smidgin of the consequent claim “so it must be supernatural then”. At the very best (for AB) it would give him a “don’t know”, which no matter how much he uses that as his launch pad for his argument from ignorance/incredulity rationale is still false reasoning. 

I’ve tried to explain this to him many times and in a variety of ways but it always falls on deaf ears.             

As maybe as all this is, i've long questioned your understanding of emergence. That not withstanding even a full understanding might still not confer an understanding of emerged consciousness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As maybe as all this is, i've long questioned your understanding of emergence.

You can “question” anything you like, notwithstanding that you’ve never shown much understanding of the phenomenon no matter how often I’ve explained it to you (and pointed you to books about it too).

That not withstanding even a full understanding might still not confer an understanding of emerged consciousness.

Well yes, but only in the sense that that’s true of any explanatory model – a full understanding of physics "might not" explain gravity either (it could still be pixies holding stuff down with invisible strings) but so what though? Emergence remains the only cogent explanation in principle we have for consciousness, so there’s no good reason that I know of to discount it.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You can “question” anything you like, notwithstanding that you’ve never shown much understanding of the phenomenon no matter how often I’ve explained it to you (and pointed you to books about it too).

I had my own books and articles though. ''Are we alone'' and an article in New scientist on the subject by eminent physicist Paul Davies. Did you ever find time to read those?

Well yes, but only in the sense that that’s true of any explanatory model – a full understanding of physics "might not" explain gravity either (it could still be pixies holding stuff down with invisible strings) but so what though? Emergence remains the only cogent explanation in principle we have for consciousness, so there’s no good reason that I know of to discount it.   

I'm not discounting it either but you are the one using the term 'emergence' shamanically here i think.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I had my own books and articles though. ''Are we alone'' and an article in New scientist on the subject by eminent physicist Paul Davies. Did you ever find time to read those?

No. Do they change or add anything to the existing understanding? 

I'm not discounting it either but you are the one using the term 'emergence' shamanically here i think.

Then you think wrongly. Emergence is "just" the self-organising process of more complex phenomena arising from their individually less complex but interacting parts. Consciousness seems to be a self-organised complex phenomenon that arises from the interacting components of brains. That's it really.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No. Do they change or add anything to the existing understanding?

They take emergence to be more than what you take it to be as exemplified in your next paragraph. Davies is still writing about emergence.  Your pop scientist ''emergence guru''? What's he doing these days?

Then you think wrongly.

Violent Gabriella has already outlined your propensity to immediately label disagreement as wrong so I am dismissing that

Emergence is "just" the self-organising process of more complex phenomena arising from their individually less complex but interacting parts. Consciousness seems to be a self-organised complex phenomenon that arises from the interacting components of brains. That's it really.   

No it isn't as any proper internet search will show you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

Emergent properties are not identical with, reducible to, or deducible[3] from the other properties. The different ways in which this independence requirement can be satisfied lead to variant types of emergence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They take emergence to be more than what you take it to be as exemplified in your next paragraph. Davies is still writing about emergence.  Your pop scientist ''emergence guru''? What's he doing these days?

Gibberish.

Violent Gabriella has already outlined your propensity to immediately label disagreement as wrong so I am dismissing that as your malfunction

No, VG herself does that and then accuses others (who don’t do it) of the same thing. I on the other hand suggest that you (or anyone else for that matter) are wrong by making arguments to that effect. You should know this by now.
 

No it isn't as any proper internet search will show you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

Yes it is. Here for example is the definition of emergence in the first line of the Wiki article you linked to:

“In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.”

My version was: “Emergence is "just" the self-organising process of more complex phenomena arising from their individually less complex but interacting parts” (Reply 44487).

Good luck getting a fag paper between those two definitions.

Perhaps you should try reading your own links before posting next time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

 
Yes it is. Here for example is the first line of the Wiki article you linked to:

“In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.”

My version was: “Emergence is "just" the self-organising process of more complex phenomena arising from their individually less complex but interacting parts.”

Good luck getting a fag paper between those two definitions.

Not out to, just need to point out their inadequacy although wikipedia here does not mention self organisation and yours lacks the distinguishing features of an emerged property


Wikipedia states

Emergent properties are not identical with, reducible to, or deducible[3] from the other properties. The different ways in which this independence requirement can be satisfied lead to variant types of emergence.

Do you agree?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not out to, just need topoint out their inadequacy''

Perhaps you should try reading your own links before posting next time?

Your appalling communication abilities are letting you down again. What are you even trying to say here?

Wikipedia states

Emergent properties are not identical with, reducible to, or deducible[3] from the other properties. The different ways in which this independence requirement can be satisfied lead to variant types of emergence.

Do you agree?

More or less yes. So what though?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your appalling communication abilities are letting you down again. What are you even trying to say here?

More or less yes. So what though?

Do you agree that these properties are irreducible?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I had my own books and articles though. ''Are we alone'' and an article in New scientist on the subject by eminent physicist Paul Davies. Did you ever find time to read those?

No. Do they change or add anything to the existing understanding? 

Since Davies is still writing on emergence I should say he has added considerably to the field since Steven Johnson's pop science ''Emergence'' of 2001 which is your recommended reference.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you agree that these properties are irreducible?

Depends what you mean by “irreducible”. Clearly for example water (ie, with its emergent properties) can be “reduced” back to oxygen and hydrogen, but in that case the property of eg wetness itself disappears. Also though, a street of silk goods shops say creates an emergent entity of a silk goods market that’s “reducible” (ie, has fewer interacting constituent parts) by closing one of the shops, but a (less complex) market likely continues nonetheless.     

As I said – it depends what you mean by the term.

Anyway (and more to the point) before you do your eel in a bathful of swarfega trade make slippery act again what actually happened here was that in Reply 44487 I told you what emergence means (“Emergence is "just" the self-organising process of more complex phenomena arising from their individually less complex but interacting parts”).

In your reply 44488 you said as what you intended to be a corrective:

“No it isn't as any proper internet search will show you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism”

But when I opened the Wiki link funnily enough the first sentence of the article defined emergence more or less identically to the way I had done (“In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.”)

In other words, your “No it isn't as any proper internet search will show you” was wrong.

Do you not think that perhaps you should acknowledge and withdraw your error rather than just slide away from it as if it wasn’t there? 

Since Davies is still writing on emergence I should say he has added considerably to the field since Steven Johnson's pop science ''Emergence'' of 2001 which is your recommended reference.

Ah, I do so love the smell of poisoning the well in the morning with that “pop” before the “science” part as if that in some way made the science part wrong. The point at issue here though (ie, what “emergence” means) is the same as Johnson described it, as I described it and as the Wiki article you so helpfully (for me) linked to describes it.

If you do have any interest in developments in that field as defined though, there are many more recent academic papers online to help you.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, I do so love the smell of poisoning the well in the morning with that “pop” before the “science” part as if that in some way made the science part wrong. The point at issue here though (ie, what “emergence” means) is the same as Johnson described it, as I described it and as the Wiki article you so helpfully (for me) linked to describes it.

If you do have any interest in developments in that field as defined though, there are many more recent academic papers online to help you.   

It was you who recommended the popular science (pop science) book written by english graduate Steven Johnson and then cheekily and piss takingly asked whether the Eminent Scientist Paul Davies could possibly have added anything to Johnson's contribution. Is Johnson still writing on Emergence or has he moved onto other things. I believe you recommended Johnson in the later 2010's and it's publication date was 2001.

Since you have passed the sniff test on irreducibility, How are you with Deducibility?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It was you who recommended the popular science (pop science) book written by english graduate Steven Johnson and then cheekily and piss takingly asked whether the Eminent Scientist Paul Davies could possibly have added anything to Johnson's contribution. Is Johnson still writing on Emergence or has he moved onto other things. I believe you recommended Johnson in the later 2010's and it's publication date was 2001.

I still recommend it – it’s a good book, and just repeating your effort at poisoning the well doesn’t make it wrong.

Anyway, about your mistake of “No it isn't as any proper internet search will show you” followed by the (frankly hilarious) linking to a Wiki article that actually defined emergence just as I had done, should I expect your apology or at least the withdrawal of the mistake some time soon?

Or are we in eel in bathtub of Swarfega territory with you again?

Since you have passed the sniff test on irreducibility, How are you with Deducibility?

What fucking “sniff test”? Why would you expect me to indulge you by answering questions you don’t understand so you can avoid your most recent car crash?

Start again:

1. “Emergence” means what I said it means right?

2. The Wiki article you linked to mirrors what I said emergence means right?

3. I therefore use the term non-“shamanistically” (whatever that would even mean) right?

Are we clear now?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I still recommend it – it’s a good book, and just repeating your effort at poisoning the well doesn’t make it wrong.

I shall look out for it in the pop science section the next time i'm in Waterstones

Start again:

1. “Emergence” means what I said it means right?

You omitted the three distinguishing features of emergence as I pointed out

2. The Wiki article you linked to mirrors what I said emergence means right?

3. I therefore use the term non-“shamanistically” (whatever that would even mean) right?

Are we clear now?

As I have said you passed the irreducibility sniff test. Take the compliment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I shall look out for it in the pop science section the next time i'm in Waterstones

You should - you might learn something. Nice going with the poisoning the well hat trick though. 

You omitted the three distinguishing features of emergence as I pointed out

No I didn’t. In Reply 44486 you accused me of using the term “emergence” “shamanistically” (whatever that’s supposed to mean.)

In Reply 44487 I corrected you by telling with a definition how I actually use it.

In Reply 44488 you told me that my definition was wrong (“No it isn't as any proper internet search will show you”) and linked to some articles that, hilariously as it turned out, defined emergence more or less identically to the way I had.

No part of that exchange required me to list “the three distinguishing features of emergence” at all (there are more than three by the way), so you may as well have critiqued me for not listing the Arsenal team sheet too for all the relevance it had.

When your car crash “No it isn't as any proper internet search will show you” was exposed though, rather than apologise or withdraw it you just ignored the correction and tried a different and irrelevant tack. 
 
What does this disgraceful behaviour say about you do you think?

As I have said you passed the irreducibility sniff test. Take the compliment.

WTF? Like David Icke “complimenting” Professor Brian Cox on his cosmology knowledge you mean? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You should - you might learn something. Nice going with the poisoning the well hat trick though. 

No I didn’t. In Reply 44486 you accused me of using the term “emergence” “shamanistically” (whatever that’s supposed to mean.)

In Reply 44487 I corrected you by telling with a definition how I actually use it.

In Reply 44488 you told me that my definition was wrong (“No it isn't as any proper internet search will show you”) and linked to some articles that, hilariously as it turned out, defined emergence more or less identically to the way I had.

No part of that exchange required me to list “the three distinguishing features of emergence” at all (there are more than three by the way), so you may as well have critiqued me for not listing the Arsenal team sheet too for all the relevance it had.

When your car crash “No it isn't as any proper internet search will show you” was exposed though, rather than apologise or withdraw it you just ignored the correction and tried a different and irrelevant tack. 
 
What does this disgraceful behaviour say about you do you think?

WTF? Like David Icke “complimenting” Professor Brian Cox on his cosmology knowledge you mean?

I confess that up until your acceptance of irreducibility in emergence, I had you down as someone who thought the emergent property was totally explicable in terms of what it arose from. It seems I was wrong.