Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

You need better to understand emergence - ants and termites for example are deeply stupid (almost brainless in fact) yet together they build huge and complex structures optimally aligned to the sun and incorporating air conditioning, they farm livestock, they create complex social structures etc. They don't do this because a boss ant shows up with a set of drawings, and nor because they are "reaching" for something "beyond their senses". Rather they exhibit complexities together than none of them have individually - and that's emergence.

Yes...and that shows that 'Intelligence' is build into the universe.  Its not about a old man with a white beard.

Or it shows that what we percieve as 'intelligence' is just an appreciation of the accumulation and superimposition of the simple patterns intrinsic to nature. Intelligence is not 'built in' to the universe, but rather 'built from' the universe.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

AB,

The single objects you quote (wall, brick, atom) only exist as objects in human perception.  In essence, everything is just comprised of atomic particles.  We group and label these particles in human perception.

Actually sub-atomic particles, but you're along the right lines. We see "wall" as a solid object, but if we had eyesight as powerful as a scanning electron microscope we'd see instead a very different version of reality. Same with time - is anything a solid object, or is everything a process in an unending state of flux, albeit often over periods too long for us to perceive?

What can happen when these components combine though is something called an emergent property - consciousness for example is an emergent property of the stuff of which our brains are made: you can't dissect a brain and find an idea, but there's no need to add anything more to the mix for ideas to exist nonetheless. You may find Steven Johnson's book Emergence helpful on this subject.

And this emergent property has the ability to compose such sublime work as Spem In Alium.  An attempt to reach out to something that exists beyond the scope of our physical senses perhaps?

Oh, but Tallis wouldn't have done it if he hadn't wanted to show that the English (and the English God) are best. After all, he couldn't bear the thought that the Italian Alessandro Striggio had written a bloody good 40-part motet* before him.

However, my flippancy should not be read as an attempt to denigrate the musical marvel that is Tallis' Spem..


*Ecce Beatam Lucem

[Alan Burns]

You need better to understand emergence - ants and termites for example are deeply stupid (almost brainless in fact) yet together they build huge and complex structures optimally aligned to the sun and incorporating air conditioning, they farm livestock, they create complex social structures etc. They don't do this because a boss ant shows up with a set of drawings, and nor because they are "reaching" for something "beyond their senses". Rather they exhibit complexities together than none of them have individually - and that's emergence.

But what happens to this emergent property when you remove the human observer?  Can it still exist in absolute terms without being perceived by an intelligent awareness?  The ants themselves do not perceive any emergent property, they just react to their immediate environment according to instinct.

That's a very strange argument.   As blue said, you are edging towards pure idealism, and Bishop Berkeley.  Are you seriously suggesting that before humans existed, ants did not live in their social groups, with all the attendant features, such as farming other animals?

I can't believe you are going down that road, as it leads to nihilism.   Stars were not formed, as I didn't see it.

I am sorry I did not do a very good job of explaining my point of view.

I am not saying the material in the features of the ant hill does not exist.  I am just saying that they are only recognised as features in human perception.  Outside human perception, everything just exists as atomic particles which react to events.  To recognise features within these particles, you need intelligent perception.  Take away the intelligent perception and the features will not be recognised.  What I am implying is that the emergent properties of the ant hill are not physical entities, they are just features recognised by intelligent perception.

You could say that the meaning of a word is an emergent property, but it only exists in human perception.  In physical terms the word is just patterns of ink on paper, or vibrations of air molecules.  Human perception is needed to recognise patterns and features, but the patterns and features are just made up of basic elements.  To describe human self awareness as an emergent property is merely trying to apply a label to something which does not physically exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am sorry I did not do a very good job of explaining my point of view.

Actually you did – it’s the “point of view” that’s problematic, not the way you expressed it. 

I am not saying the material in the features of the ant hill does not exist.  I am just saying that they are only recognised as features in human perception.  Outside human perception, everything just exists as atomic particles which react to events.  To recognise features within these particles, you need intelligent perception.  Take away the intelligent perception and the features will not be recognised.  What I am implying is that the emergent properties of the ant hill are not physical entities, they are just features recognised by intelligent perception.

Again, it’s sub-atomic particles and there are two generic types: matter S-APs, and force S-APs. It’s not that they “react to events” at all – rather they are the “events”. There’s nothing we know of beyond these S-APs that would constitute these independent “events”. Try Sean Carroll’s The Particle at the End of the Universe if you want a better understanding of the physics.

You could say that the meaning of a word is an emergent property, but it only exists in human perception.  In physical terms the word is just patterns of ink on paper, or vibrations of air molecules.  Human perception is needed to recognise patterns and features, but the patterns and features are just made up of basic elements.  To describe human self awareness as an emergent property is merely trying to apply a label to something which does not physically exist.

Are you suggesting that the form of a snowflake (for example) would’ be different if we weren’t there to see it? That’s wrong (unless you are a pure idealist after all) - there were snowflakes long before there were people to look at them. If instead you’re merely saying that “the form we describe as “snowflake” is a definition centred on the time and space we happen to be able to perceive, interpret and characterise” then fair enough, but so what? 

[Alan Burns]

Are you suggesting that the form of a snowflake (for example) would’ be different if we weren’t there to see it? That’s wrong (unless you are a pure idealist after all) - there were snowflakes long before there were people to look at them. If instead you’re merely saying that “the form we describe as “snowflake” is a definition centred on the time and space we happen to be able to perceive, interpret and characterise” then fair enough, but so what?

A snowflake is just a collection of ice particles in a formation recognised in human perception.  Its emergent property is the recognised pattern, but this property does not perform any function.

Human self awareness does perform a function in perceiving the content of our brain cells and attaching meaning to this content.

[Outrider]

A snowflake is just a collection of ice particles in a formation recognised in human perception.  Its emergent property is the recognised pattern, but this property does not perform any function.

No, the emergent property is the pattern, whether we recognise it or not. All the snowflakes that we don't look at still have the pattern, they are still snowflakes.

O.

[Alan Burns]

A snowflake is just a collection of ice particles in a formation recognised in human perception.  Its emergent property is the recognised pattern, but this property does not perform any function.

No, the emergent property is the pattern, whether we recognise it or not. All the snowflakes that we don't look at still have the pattern, they are still snowflakes.

O.

A pattern is recognised, defined and labeled in human perception, as are all emergent properties.  But the recognition, definition and labelling does not attribute any special powers to the emergent property because in essence it is just matter subject to the natural laws of this universe.  To assume that human perception and self awareness are emergent properties has no valid justification because these attributes are not definable in material terms.

[Sassy]

All your post has done is prove you know you have no argument against what I wrote.
It is clear logic that if freewill did not exist that no one could be guilty of sin or breaking the law.
Whatever is really all there is to say. FACT is you do have freewill and you chose to believe the rubbish you tried to spout here. FREEWILL is a fact. Get over it.

Claiming an argument is false because you don't like the conclusions is a logical fallacy. In most depictions, yes, the argument that Free Will doesn't exist does remove any justification for notions of sin or guilt - it doesn't eradicate the notion of breaking the law, but it does call into question a punitive justice system on the back, rather than rehabilitative.

Free Will is an claim that, logically, can't stand up, but psychologically is difficult to let go of.

O.

What a load of crap! Come on O, have you been drinking?

Brilliantly argued Sassy. How can anyone disagree with such a wonderfully thought through response?

Whilst in the real world - Outrider's post is spot on, as usual. Perhaps you need to reread it and think about it a bit more.

Falsely protesting and falsely pretending is not good when you clearly cannot justify his post.

Nothing false about it Sassy. Why not try actually arguing against Outrider's post in a sensible way and you might come across a bit better. Making some points to demonstrate why O is incorrect with supporting evidence would be good. A tip though - stating that something is a FACT doesn't count - nor does quoting pieces of scripture. Go on - give it a go.

He does not have an argument. That is obvious to anyone who understands the conversation we had previously.
Hence my comments. Now if you want to answer him and show what he is saying to be TRUE and proved then go ahead. But we both know that what we were discussing that O cannot. Here endeth the first lesson...

[Alan Burns]

In the future it is quite possible robots will have human style awareness and emotions too!

Robots will only be able to mimic self awareness and human emotions.  There is nothing in them that can actually experience these things.  Essentally the brain of a robot is just a series of switches and gates used to react according to its program.  I can say this confidently after spending over forty years in computer software development.

[Outrider]

A snowflake is just a collection of ice particles in a formation recognised in human perception.  Its emergent property is the recognised pattern, but this property does not perform any function.

No, the emergent property is the pattern, whether we recognise it or not. All the snowflakes that we don't look at still have the pattern, they are still snowflakes.

O.

A pattern is recognised, defined and labeled in human perception, as are all emergent properties.  But the recognition, definition and labelling does not attribute any special powers to the emergent property because in essence it is just matter subject to the natural laws of this universe.  To assume that human perception and self awareness are emergent properties has no valid justification because these attributes are not definable in material terms.

But, again, it doesn't have those 'special powers' because of the attribution, it has the attribution because - after the fact - we recognise the pattern, identify the special powers.

The intelligence of a colony of ants to build the colony that they do is not definable in material terms (yet?) but that doesn't mean that it isn't there. Are you suggesting a tiny, Pratchett-esque 'God of Ants' is designing their mounds for them?

If so, why is that a better explanation than emergent properties? Why is 'complexity' not a good argument?

O.

[Sassy]

That we have apparent free will, is eeerm, apparent. Lots of things seem untuitively undeniable to us, but that is often a facet of how things seem to us. The chair I am sitting on feels solid, but it isn't, really. Look out of the window, the sky looks blue, but it isn't, really. I feel like a human, but by cell count I am really a bacterial colony on legs. But for most practical purposes I can go about life enjoying the blueness of the sky and the comfort of my armchair; when I am introduced to someone I don't bother introducing also the billions of cohabiting microbes that form the bulk of me. Likewise i can go around making choices happily without consideration for whether my choices are truly free or are they ultimately largely predetermined.  So long as it feels free then I am happy with that.  But if you want to develop a deeper understanding of what we are, that entails delving down and dismissing our illusions in order to come to terms with the underlying realities of life, and there is nothing that we have discovered through research that would lend support to the idea that we are truly free. Like all else in life, we are the ultimately products of natural law, our choices express natural law, we cannot fashion it, subvert it, avoid it, or remake it by willpower.

I think your starting point for reality is a bit too far out.
The one thing I know for certain is that I exist.  And I am able to perceive, and formulate meanings to what is perceived.  Many people take their existence, perception and ability to formulate meaning for granted, as though it is a perfectly natural thing, but these basic realities are not explained through our perception.  Our ability to attach meaning to what we perceive is essentially subjective and does not lead to absolute truth.  Our perception is also limited to what can be detected by our physical senses, and it may well be only a small fraction of what exists in reality.  Science is in effect the human attempt to attach meaning to what we are able to perceive, so it is limited by its subjective nature and can never be defined as an absolute truth.  Your assumption that we comprise of billions of cohabiting microbes (and nothing else) in effect contradicts my most basic starting point of reality that I exist in a single entity of perception.

Alan they are confusing their own lack of self-control with free will.
That has been the whole problem right through the thread. But the truth is that their self-control is like their ideas about free will...selective at best to what suits them.

They confuse their ability to control themselves with the choice to choose whether they control themselves.

King James Bible
He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.

He will die for lack of self-control; he will be lost because of his incredible folly.




They confuse their lack of self - control with the ability of free will. If they had no free will then self control would not be an issue. But they have both and they should not confuse one with the other.

gentleness, and self-control. Here there is no conflict with the law.


They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control; they will be cruel and have no interest in what is good. -

It is a useless argument Alan, because they refuse to accept the truth...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A snowflake is just a collection of ice particles in a formation recognised in human perception.  Its emergent property is the recognised pattern, but this property does not perform any function.

It's not "just" a pattern - it's a particular way in which materials and forces interact to produce non-random outcomes. Whether those relationships are "recognised" by anyone doesn't alter the fact of them, and you've no idea whether the form of snowflakes "performs a function". For the most part though, emergent properties - ants telling the colony where the food is for example - clearly do perform a function.

Human self awareness does perform a function in perceiving the content of our brain cells and attaching meaning to this content.

This is just incoherent. "Self-awareness" is a function of our "brain cells" - an emergent property of them in fact - and you can't just pouffe into existence a separate, non-material consciousness because you don't understand this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A pattern is recognised, defined and labeled in human perception, as are all emergent properties.  But the recognition, definition and labelling does not attribute any special powers to the emergent property because in essence it is just matter subject to the natural laws of this universe.

No-one is suggesting that identifying and labelling various emergent properties thereby confers on them "special powers". Whatever beneficial functionality they happen to confer happens anyway, whether or not we're there to see it.

To assume that human perception and self awareness are emergent properties has no valid justification because these attributes are not definable in material terms.

Actually we are making remarkable inroads into understanding consciousness, but you're right to suggest that there's a still a long way to go. That says nothing though to a supposed non-material cause - you've just made that up - and everything to a "we don't know yet".

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Robots will only be able to mimic self awareness and human emotions.  There is nothing in them that can actually experience these things.  Essentally the brain of a robot is just a series of switches and gates used to react according to its program.  I can say this confidently after spending over forty years in computer software development.

You remind me of the 1950s IBM exec who confidently predicted that, by the year 2,000, computers would be reduced in weight to as little as one-and-a-half tons. As the science suggests strongly that you are in fact a meat computer, your confidence that other types of computer could never catch up seems to me unfounded, and probably wildly misplaced. 

[Alan Burns]

You remind me of the 1950s IBM exec who confidently predicted that, by the year 2,000, computers would be reduced in weight to as little as one-and-a-half tons. As the science suggests strongly that you are in fact a meat computer, your confidence that other types of computer could never catch up seems to me unfounded, and probably wildly misplaced.

Meat is still composed of the same sub atomic particles as silicon chips, with the same basic properties and limitations.  To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.  To me this is a far bigger step in faith than my faith in the Creator.

[Outrider]

Meat is still composed of the same sub atomic particles as silicon chips, with the same basic properties and limitations.  To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.  To me this is a far bigger step in faith than my faith in the Creator.

Meat is not silicon chips, yet by your own description these have different properties. Even if, for whatever reason, you cannot see how self-awareness could emerge from a pattern of activity of those sub-atomic particles, why do you presume that self-awareness could spontaneously emerge in a hypothetical deity?

We know properties emerge from the pattern of recombination of sub-atomic particles, but we have no evidence to suggest deities even exist, let alone to ascribe to them capacities that we do not see in reality.

This is, ultimately, just another 'god of the gaps' argument: you fail to see how self-awareness could emerge from matter, therefore god. It's a non-sequitur born of a false dichotomy. Your lack of imagination when it comes to the possibilities of emergent properties does not constitute evidence of gods.

O.

[Maeght]

He does not have an argument. That is obvious to anyone who understands the conversation we had previously.
Hence my comments. Now if you want to answer him and show what he is saying to be TRUE and proved then go ahead. But we both know that what we were discussing that O cannot. Here endeth the first lesson...

That's quite funny Sassy - the idea that you could give a lesson regarding comprehension or debates I know its all part of your attempt to come across as more knowledgeable and clever than everyone else but you have to actually back that up with some knowledgeable and clever posts you know.

Anyway, lets go through Outrider's post shall we.

'Claiming an argument is false because you don't like the conclusions is a logical fallacy.'

Quite correct.

'In most depictions, yes, the argument that Free Will doesn't exist does remove any justification for notions of sin or guilt'

Quite correct. You have touched on this point yourself in an earlier post so clearly understand that..

'it doesn't eradicate the notion of breaking the law, but it does call into question a punitive justice system on the back, rather than rehabilitative.'

If there is no free will then this is quite correct - which is Outrider's point. If people cannot freely decide to break the law but are driven to do so by their 'programming' then the idea of simply punishing someone rather than trying to change that programming must be questioned. You believe in Free Will hence you don't like this conclusion but this is a perfectly valid arguement to make. Perhaps you could, as I suggested, attempt to refute this argument - and that does not mean just stating Free Will is a FACT.

'Free Will is an claim that, logically, can't stand up, but psychologically is difficult to let go of'

Total free will makes no sense and there is no evidence from human behaviour that we can choose to behave in anyway we desire at any moment unfettered by our previous experiences and beliefs. There is an argument that we can over ride our unconscious instincts in our conscious mind but whether this constitutes free will is debatable if that conscious mind is just as influenced by our beliefs and previous experiences as the sub conscious is. Perhaps you could, as I suggested, attempt to refute this argument - and that does not mean just stating Free Will is a FACT.

[ippy]

You remind me of the 1950s IBM exec who confidently predicted that, by the year 2,000, computers would be reduced in weight to as little as one-and-a-half tons. As the science suggests strongly that you are in fact a meat computer, your confidence that other types of computer could never catch up seems to me unfounded, and probably wildly misplaced.

Meat is still composed of the same sub atomic particles as silicon chips, with the same basic properties and limitations.  To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.  To me this is a far bigger step in faith than my faith in the Creator.

What's happening with the up and coming quantum computers then AB?

ippy 

[Alan Burns]

Your lack of imagination when it comes to the possibilities of emergent properties does not constitute evidence of gods.

If self awareness is an emergent property from a collection of sub atomic particles, then it is totally derived, defined and driven by these lifeless particles, because there is nothing else.

So we have the bottom up approach:
I am totally defined, driven and derived from the uncontrolled actions of lifeless star debris.

Or we have the top down approach:
I am given control of an amazing biological machine, carefully formulated from the debris of an exploding star over millions of years by a creative intelligence beyond my understanding.  And it is "I" that controls, thinks, manipulates, perceives and creates, not the lifeless sub atomic particles left from the star debris.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If self awareness is an emergent property from sub atomic particles, then it is totally derived, defined and driven by these lifeless particles, because there is nothing else.

So we have the bottom up approach:
I am totally defined, driven and derived from the uncontrolled actions of lifeless star debris.

Yes. They're not "lifeless" though, at least not in combination: some combinations we describe as "life" - people, daffodils etc, and other we don't - rocks, metals etc. You're along the right lines though.

Or we have the top down approach:
I am given control of an amazing biological machine, carefully formulated from the debris of an exploding star over millions of years by a creative intelligence beyond my understanding.  And it is "I" that controls, thinks, manipulates, perceives and creates, not the lifeless sub atomic particles left from the star debris.

No. First, you have to establish a priori a something to do the giving, designing etc. Leaving aside the myriad problems with that, it fails Occam's razor in any case as it requires more assumptions than the alternative.

Second, the human body is anything but "carefully formulated" - or at least if it is then the person doing it wasn't particularly competent. Our bodies are full of design faults, overly complex arrangements, weak components that fail too readily etc.

Third, you need to to establish an "I" to be at the wheel independent of the stuff of which you are made. As there's neither evidence nor a need for such a thing, why complicate the story when emergence does the job perfectly well without it?

[Alan Burns]

What's happening with the up and coming quantum computers then AB?

ippy

Quantum computers speed up processing by using simultaneous processing techniques rather than sequential program steps.  It is just a faster way of finding solutions.

[Alan Burns]

you need to to establish an "I" to be at the wheel independent of the stuff of which you are made. As there's neither evidence nor a need for such a thing, why complicate the story when emergence does the job perfectly well without it?

From what I gather, an emergent property is an observation of some apparently non-random behaviour of material entities.

It is quite possible that an outside observer could not distinguish any apparent difference between a well designed robot which reacts to sensory inputs in a human way, and a human who has the property of self awareness.

The point I am trying to make is that there is much more to self awareness than an observed emergent property.  It is an internal experience for which emergence does very little to explain.

[jeremyp]

To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.

Not really.  I observe it every day in complex arrangements of non conscious material. 

[Alan Burns]

To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.

Not really.  I observe it every day in complex arrangements of non conscious material.

Alternatively, what you observe is the content of many brain cells as perceived by your human soul.

[floo]

To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.

Not really.  I observe it every day in complex arrangements of non conscious material.

Alternatively, what you observe is the content of many brain cells as perceived by your human soul.

The soul is only a fancy name for consciousness!