Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The deterministic aproach to conscious perception fails when it comes to apply meaning to what is perceived.  Our sensory organs send messages to lots of brain cells which then demonstrate some form of chemical activity, but then what?  Everything in this scenario is just individual sub atomic particles reacting to their immediate neighbours.  If we were just biological robots, the chemical activity in the brain cells would then lead to reactions in the form of body movements, but at no stage in the process would "meaning" be perceived.  Everything would be generated by cause and effect.

You really, really need to understand something about emergent properties before posting this kind of thing again. I pointed you to a good book on it a while back - Stephen Johnson's Emergence - that would help you a lot I think. "Meaning" is just as much an emergent property for us as building homes with air conditioning is for termites - none of the component pieces can do either of them, but collectively those properties occur. And once you start looking for them, they occur all over the place to boot.

In this respect there's nothing special about human consciousness that separates it from such a well-known and documented phenomenon, however much you may wish it otherwise so as to accommodate your religious beliefs.

[Alan Burns]

Today, Koko is 42 years old and describes herself as a "fine-gorilla-person", amazing her friends and caregivers with her intelligence and emotional depth. Her astonishing story is revealed in the documentary Koko: A Talking Gorilla.

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-animals-with-self-awareness.html

I have come across the story of Koko before.  I have not seen the documentary, but I must admit that I am a bit sceptical about the conclusions.  Some animals show a remarkable ability in mimicking human behaviour when in the presence of humans, and this mimicking could well be interpreted as posessing some human-like qualities.  But the same animals in their natural environment and habitat would not demonstrate such qualities.  If gorillas do have a genuine ability to "talk" as demonstrated in the documentary, they would do it between themselves, rather than with humans.

[Shaker]

Remarkable the sort of well-attested, heavily-documented things you can be sceptical about, Alan, and yet when it comes to the most ludicrous and implausible tosh, you give it credence.

Bizarre.

[Outrider]

The deterministic aproach to conscious perception fails when it comes to apply meaning to what is perceived.  Our sensory organs send messages to lots of brain cells which then demonstrate some form of chemical activity, but then what?

What reason do you have for thinking there needs to be anything more? Our subjective experience of that chemical activity is consciousness, that's the emergent property of the electro-chemical activity.

Everything in this scenario is just individual sub atomic particles reacting to their immediate neighbours.

So far as we have any evidence for, EVERYTHING is individual sub-atomic particles inter-reacting - from the birth of stars through to the death of bacteria, from the crystallisation of sugar to the gravitational effects that even out the rings of Saturn. Given the incredible variety of physical phenomena that can be tied 'just' to sub-atomic particles, why consider this a step too far?

If we were just biological robots, the chemical activity in the brain cells would then lead to reactions in the form of body movements, but at no stage in the process would "meaning" be perceived.  Everything would be generated by cause and effect.

I don't understand - you appear to be presuming that meaning is not part of the cause and effect chain because... you've decided it isn't. There's no reason in that argument, there's just an apparent distaste for the idea. WHY can't meaning be part of the pattern of activity of electro-chemical reactions in the brain?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

WHY can't meaning be part of the pattern of activity of electro-chemical reactions in the brain?

Because if he grasped that it is he'd have no need of his little man at the controls he calls a "soul", and then the rationale for his religious beliefs would collapse.

And he can't allow that.

That's why it matter not a jot how much reason and evidence we throw at his assertions, he'll cling to them come what may.

[Alan Burns]

And once you start looking for them, they occur all over the place to boot.

This is the key phrase which highlights just what "emergent properties" are.  They are only perceived as emergent properties in human perception.  In reality they are just a collection of particles.  Any pattern or collective behaviour of these particles is just a human observation - it does not exist in any material form or entity.

[Outrider]

And once you start looking for them, they occur all over the place to boot.

This is the key phrase which highlights just what "emergent properties" are.  They are only perceived as emergent properties in human perception.  In reality they are just a collection of particles.  Any pattern or collective behaviour of these particles is just a human observation - it does not exist in any material form or entity.

Meaning is, by definition, only extant in the conscious interpretation, otherwise it wouldn't be meaning it would be colour or texture or some sensory depiction?

It's conceptual, much like '2' is a concept that's valid in its own right, but you can't physically find 'a 2'. It's a pattern, and patterns only exist in the eye of the beholder.

O.

[Alan Burns]

WHY can't meaning be part of the pattern of activity of electro-chemical reactions in the brain?

The content and state of our brain cells certainly represent the "meaning" we perceive through them, but it is the translation of these contents and states into a single entity of perception which defies any materialistic explanation.

[Outrider]

The content and state of our brain cells certainly represent the "meaning" we perceive through them, but it is the translation of these contents and states into a single entity of perception which defies any materialistic explanation.

Again, Alan, I get that you genuinely think that, but I'm not seeing a reason in there, all I'm seeing is a statement.

Our entire sense of self, all our sensory understandings, the entirety of our perception is only evidenced outside of the experience of it by measurable brain activity.

Now I'll accede that it's possible there's an external source for this perception, and that our brain is merely an antenna of sorts to communicate this information back and forth to something else, but I don't see any evidence for this 'something else'.

Why posit the existence of an unevidenced 'external' entity to explain perception, when we are already aware of the existence of innumerable emergent properties in other places, when we're already aware of the recognition of conceptual notions from patterns in physical materials?

O.

[Alien]

...
which means the holocaust is a miracle in your world.

I agree.
We usually attribute miracles to God's divine intervention, but God has given humans the power to intervene too using their gift of free will.

Ouch!

[Maeght]

I can't bring myself to imagine something which I know does not exist.

Surely you can if you have free will.

ANy comment Alan?

[Alan Burns]

I can't bring myself to imagine something which I know does not exist.

Surely you can if you have free will.

ANy comment Alan?

Free will does not mean I can do the impossible.  Free will is simply the ability to make choices which are not pre determined, but driven by an independent spirit.

[Alan Burns]

The content and state of our brain cells certainly represent the "meaning" we perceive through them, but it is the translation of these contents and states into a single entity of perception which defies any materialistic explanation.

Again, Alan, I get that you genuinely think that, but I'm not seeing a reason in there, all I'm seeing is a statement.

Our entire sense of self, all our sensory understandings, the entirety of our perception is only evidenced outside of the experience of it by measurable brain activity.

Now I'll accede that it's possible there's an external source for this perception, and that our brain is merely an antenna of sorts to communicate this information back and forth to something else, but I don't see any evidence for this 'something else'.

Why posit the existence of an unevidenced 'external' entity to explain perception, when we are already aware of the existence of innumerable emergent properties in other places, when we're already aware of the recognition of conceptual notions from patterns in physical materials?

O.

You assume that chemical activity in the brain cells is all that is required to generate our self awareness because there is nothing else which is physically detectable.  My problem with this is that I see nothing which defines chemical activity alone to be human awareness.  The idea of emergent properties is just what it is - an idea in human imagination, but with no definition of how it works.  And there is the concept of free will.  Chemical activity alone is not capable of generating free will choices, so I would have to assume that every choice I make has been pre determined by the chains of cause and effect which began with the big bang.

[Maeght]

I can't bring myself to imagine something which I know does not exist.

Surely you can if you have free will.

ANy comment Alan?

Free will does not mean I can do the impossible.  Free will is simply the ability to make choices which are not pre determined, but driven by an independent spirit.

If the spirit is truly independent then it can do drive us to make any choice. If it is impossible for you to imagine something then it isn't free and is restricted by previous experiences so not free will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The idea of emergent properties is just what it is - an idea in human imagination, but with no definition of how it works.

That's just flat wrong. The phenomenon of emergence is well-documented, shown in experiments consistently to occur, and considered mainstream science. Unless you have some remarkable evidence to the contrary, simply denying all that by assertion because it contradicts your religious beliefs makes you look foolish. There's any amount of material on the subject freely available, or you could by a book on it so as to understand at least a little of the subject you so blithely dismiss out of hand.

Until you do have at least some understanding of the subject, you're a bit like the chap who turns up at the Large Hadron Collider and says, "you know, this physics stuff really isn't working for me. I can't understand it, so I reckon there's really a ghost in the machine producing those results".     

[Outrider]

You assume that chemical activity in the brain cells is all that is required to generate our self awareness because there is nothing else which is physically detectable.

To a degree, although I think that phrasing is slightly pejorative. I don't 'assume', I deduce from the available evidence. We have a strong, growing vein of evidence that shows distinct correlations between brain function and our awareness - that, in and of itself, doesn't prove causation, of course, in either direction. Complicated experiments have demonstrated that the brain activity occurs in advance of the awareness, though, and the complete lack of any evidence for anything else means that it's a reasonable conclusion that brain activity is the source of awareness.

You can posit other things, but you need reasons to suggest them, and your personal incredulity about the prospect of awareness having purely physical sources isn't sufficient reason.

My problem with this is that I see nothing which defines chemical activity alone to be human awareness.  The idea of emergent properties is just what it is - an idea in human imagination, but with no definition of how it works.

And 'I don't know' doesn't equal 'therefore souls'. If you want to posit souls you need to provide evidence for souls, and the lack of a complete theory of brain activity leading to awareness isn't it.

And there is the concept of free will.  Chemical activity alone is not capable of generating free will choices, so I would have to assume that every choice I make has been pre determined by the chains of cause and effect which began with the big bang.

Right. That, again, is not an argument against the theory, that's just a description of the logical conclusion of it. You can dislike that conclusion, but again that's not a reason to discredit the theory, you have to provide some sort of reason to think that the reasoning is flawed. At the moment what you can't do is come up with a logical basis for free will, whether or not awareness is purely physical, because the very concept makes no senses - it can either be free or it can be will, but it can't be both at the same time.

O.

[Alan Burns]

I can't bring myself to imagine something which I know does not exist.

Surely you can if you have free will.

ANy comment Alan?

Free will does not mean I can do the impossible.  Free will is simply the ability to make choices which are not pre determined, but driven by an independent spirit.

If the spirit is truly independent then it can do drive us to make any choice. If it is impossible for you to imagine something then it isn't free and is restricted by previous experiences so not free will.

But free will does not mean unrestricted choice.  It just means a choice which is not forced upon me by determinate events beyond my control.  I could choose to pretend that I have no soul, but I choose not to.  That is free will.

[Nearly Sane]

But free will does not mean unrestricted choice.  It just means a choice which is not forced upon me by determinate events beyond my control.  I could choose to pretend that I have no soul, but I choose not to.  That is free will.

Your language is all over the place here - since it is a question about choosing a belief - not to pretend to a belief. I would suggest that your use of the word pretend is because you realise that the idea of choosing a belief is nonsensical.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The idea of emergent properties is just what it is - an idea in human imagination, but with no definition of how it works.

That's just flat wrong. The phenomenon of emergence is well-documented, shown in experiments consistently to occur, and considered mainstream science. Unless you have some remarkable evidence to the contrary, simply denying all that by assertion because it contradicts your religious beliefs makes you look foolish. There's any amount of material on the subject freely available, or you could by a book on it so as to understand at least a little of the subject you so blithely dismiss out of hand.

Until you do have at least some understanding of the subject, you're a bit like the chap who turns up at the Large Hadron Collider and says, "you know, this physics stuff really isn't working for me. I can't understand it, so I reckon there's really a ghost in the machine producing those results".   

In this context, I am not denying the existence of emergent properties, as defined in the literature you quote.  I am just pointing out that human self awareness comprises of much more that what the emergent prorerties of material could ever produce.  For example, how can an emergent property of a material based object say a prayer to God?  You will probably label this an another example of incredulity, but there are many aspects to our humanity that just can't be defined in material terms.

[Nearly Sane]

I am not denying the existence of emergent properties, as defined in the literature you quote.  I am just pointing out that human self awareness comprises of much more that what the emergent prorerties of material could ever produce.  For example, how can an emergent property of a material based object say a prayer to God?  You will probably label this an another example of incredulity, but there are many aspects to our humanity that just can't be defined in material terms.

Incredulity , as you noted, backed up by assertion.

[Alan Burns]

But free will does not mean unrestricted choice.  It just means a choice which is not forced upon me by determinate events beyond my control.  I could choose to pretend that I have no soul, but I choose not to.  That is free will.

Your language is all over the place here - since it is a question about choosing a belief - not to pretend to a belief. I would suggest that your use of the word pretend is because you realise that the idea of choosing a belief is nonsensical.

You are correct in implying that we cannot choose what to believe, we can only believe in what we discern to be the truth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not denying the existence of emergent properties, as defined in the literature you quote.  I am just pointing out that human self awareness comprises of much more that what the emergent prorerties of material could ever produce.

You're not "pointing out" this supposedly factual statement, you're merely asserting it to be true. So far as I'm aware you've never attempted an argument to explain why you think that to be the case, and it seems that all you're actually doing is saying to yourself, "ooh, that looks really complicated so I reckon it can't be an emergent property at all".

For example, how can an emergent property of a material based object say a prayer to God?  You will probably label this an another example of incredulity, but there are many aspects to our humanity that just can't be defined in material terms.

Yes it is an argument from personal incredulity - that you can't explain how consciousness could be an emergent property does not mean that it isn't, let alone that you can then drop in additional agencies like a "soul" (for which there's no evidence whatever) to plug the gap in your ignorance. No-one claims that consciousness is fully explained yet - far from it in fact - but what we do know is that emergence is widely observed and understood, and that there's nothing inherently different about consciousness in principle that means that it doesn't fit the same phenomenon.

It's simple enough: either you think consciousness is just too complicated to be an emergent property so it can't be (which is arbitrary and irrational), or you have to deny that explanation because it would contradict a religious narrative that you've decided a priori must be the correct one (which is dishonest). Having painted yourself into that corner, it seems to me that you'll have to address either one or the other (or both) if you want to get out of it.

Good luck!   

[Maeght]

But free will does not mean unrestricted choice.  It just means a choice which is not forced upon me by determinate events beyond my control.

Yes.

I could choose to pretend that I have no soul, but I choose not to.  That is free will.

You don't believe that you have no soul, its not a choice but a conclusion you have reached based on you nature/nurture and experiences. Your belief is restricted and determined by those prior influences/experiences.

Walk me through this little scenario Alan - I'm a simple soul (am, not have of course) so help me out here.

You make a choice about something at anyone moment. If you could re-enact that moment exactly - go back in time to the exact same moment with the exact same prior experiences, knowledge etc would you make exactly the same decision as before?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I am not denying the existence of emergent properties, as defined in the literature you quote.  I am just pointing out that human self awareness comprises of much more that what the emergent prorerties of material could ever produce.

You're not "pointing out" this supposedly factual statement, you're merely asserting it to be true. So far as I'm aware you've never attempted an argument to explain why you think that to be the case, and it seems that all you're actually doing is saying to yourself, "ooh, that looks really complicated so I reckon it can't be an emergent property at all".

For example, how can an emergent property of a material based object say a prayer to God?  You will probably label this an another example of incredulity, but there are many aspects to our humanity that just can't be defined in material terms.

Yes it is an argument from personal incredulity - that you can't explain how consciousness could be an emergent property does not mean that it isn't, let alone that you can then drop in additional agencies like a "soul" (for which there's no evidence whatever) to plug the gap in your ignorance. No-one claims that consciousness is fully explained yet - far from it in fact - but what we do know is that emergence is widely observed and understood, and that there's nothing inherently different about consciousness in principle that means that it doesn't fit the same phenomenon.

It's simple enough: either you think consciousness is just too complicated to be an emergent property so it can't be (which is arbitrary and irrational), or you have to deny that explanation because it would contradict a religious narrative that you've decided a priori must be the correct one (which is dishonest). Having painted yourself into that corner, it seems to me that you'll have to address either one or the other (or both) if you want to get out of it.

Good luck!   

I think it boils down to two options:

1) The emergent property of self awareness is entirely driven from the material it emerges from.  Any idea of control within the self awareness is therefore an illusion.

2) The emergent property of self awareness actually has control of the material it comes from, in which case the source of control is outside the material it emerges from.

[Outrider]

In this context, I am not denying the existence of emergent properties, as defined in the literature you quote.  I am just pointing out that human self awareness comprises of much more that what the emergent prorerties of material could ever produce.  For example, how can an emergent property of a material based object say a prayer to God?

Why would that utterance be any different to any other utterance? It's directed at a concept, conveying concepts. Why is a prayer different to, say, directions to the beach?

You will probably label this an another example of incredulity, but there are many aspects to our humanity that just can't be defined in material terms.

I would label it as an argument from incredulity, because you are conflating the idea that we have an incomplete current understanding of the physical origins of awareness with the idea that therefore consciousness does not have a physical source. You don't believe it's possible in the absence of a current explanation and because of the limitations of your imagination in that area.

By contrast, your alternative is to imagine some extra-dimensional 'soul' element without any mechanisms by which it would communicate, without any evidence that any such communication doesn't happen, and without any explanation for how that would overcome the logical shortfall inherent in the concept of free will in the first place.

O.