Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

But a computer has to follow its programming ... we don't! We can make the opposite choice even if only to show that we can.

And what determines whether we make the opposite choice? Our state of mind at the time, which is the composite of a host of deterministic neurons under the mechanistic influence of biochemistry.

All the evidenced elements of thinking are deterministic - it's impossible for the whole to be anything but deterministic unless you introduce something else. Even if you could do that, you'd have to explain how it could be non-deterministic without being random, and therefore not 'will'.

O.

[Alan Burns]

There are ongoing projects attempting to create synthetic brains in which the hardwire of the machine is closely modelled on mammalain brains. If we succeed in creating machine consciousness then self awareness would follow downstream. Strange to think that we would then have a thinking consciousness entity that was by any normal measure, not alive. What that means of course is that we need to review what we mean by 'life'.

I can confidently predict that these projects will not succeed in forming conscious awareness from atomic particles.  This concept will remain in the realms of science fiction.

They may succeed in simulating the appearance of conscious awareness, but you will get no internal awareness in any man made machine.

[Alan Burns]

But a computer has to follow its programming ... we don't! We can make the opposite choice even if only to show that we can.

And what determines whether we make the opposite choice? Our state of mind at the time, which is the composite of a host of deterministic neurons under the mechanistic influence of biochemistry.

All the evidenced elements of thinking are deterministic - it's impossible for the whole to be anything but deterministic unless you introduce something else. Even if you could do that, you'd have to explain how it could be non-deterministic without being random, and therefore not 'will'.

O.

But even if you deduce that a decision is pre determined, there is the element of timing.  When we make a decision to do something, there has to be an event which triggers this decision into action.  Does our conscious awareness not have the control over when to flick the switch to activate a decision?

[Outrider]

But even if you deduce that a decision is pre determined, there is the element of timing.  When we make a decision to do something, there has to be an event which triggers this decision into action.  Does our conscious awareness not have the control over when to flick the switch to activate a decision?

The evidence suggests that our awareness is of the fact the switch has been flicked. The decision is made before we are aware we've made the decision. We are aware we have to make a decision, we are aware that our brains are running through the conceivable options, we are aware of what we conclude the options are and we are aware of the ultimate decision, our subjective feeling of making those decisions is an after the fact illusion. We have no more control over our own thoughts than over someone else's, we just get a closer perspective on the process.

O.

[Sassy]

So why did lots of humans all over the world suddenly start to believe in something for which there is no physical evidence?  There is overwhelming evidence that all physical beings come to an end when they die, so what prompted the human race to start to believe in a soul which could transcend death?

There's no evidence for that; not in any history book I have read at least. The geographic diversity and historic development of early belief systems seems to me entirely consistent with what we might have predicted from an elementary understanding of human psychology and ancient history.

RUBBISH... again you adopt someone elses theories as if a defined and logical answer.

In truth they believe the tower of Babel was the place where religion became scattered all over the world. The belief in god/s and the belief the soul lives on after death is seen in many religion. Because the physical decays there is no need to think that the essence of life does not carry on.

Truth is man has an unbelieving attitude to anything he cannot see or touch.

The greatest mystery given the theories of space and time is that we exist at all....

[ekim]

I don't see there is any conflict between a) being conscious and self aware and b)our decisions and choices to being determined by our previous experiences and our nature. Where is the conflict?

I may be reading the discussion incorrectly but I think it revolves around O's reply "Because the evidence available suggest that our sense of 'choice' is an illusion, and that in fact we have no more choice than a computer programmed to make a mathematical determination between two constants - they have a decision to arrive at, but the conditions at the start of that process pre-determine the outcome.
which seems to imply that we are like computer programmes with no consciousness and no choice.  However, the external computer programmer was able to consciously choose the form which the programme took and can also reprogramme it.  Perhaps it is reasonable to say that humans are capable of choosing to reprogramme certain of their own inner programmes if they become aware of them.  If they remain unconscious of them, which is the purpose of conditioning processes, then the computer analogy is more appropriate, awareness is lost and so is choice.

No, I think you have read the discussion correctly. I don't think 'we are like computer programmes with no consciousness' is correct though. We can still have consciousness with our choices being determined by the way our brains are programmed can't we?

Yes, physical survival depends upon the programmes, many, if not most, of which function subconsciously/unconsciously for very good reasons.  There are other programmes which also function subconsciously like addictions, compulsions, superstitious behaviour where 'choice' is determined in a programmed way.  The first step towards reprogramming is to be conscious of (acknowledge)the problem.  Repetition is one of the techniques used in conditioning programmes which is why hymns, prayers, mantras are used in religions and slogans and brand names in advertising, the idea being to circumvent conscious choice.  I think it is dangerous to give the impression that there is no conscious free choice .... it wasn't me, your worship, it was my programme ... it's a suicide bomber's charter.

[Outrider]

Because the physical decays there is no need to think that the essence of life does not carry on.

Except the lack of any evidence for anything living after death, the absence of any evidence for an 'essence of life' and the current evidence of an absolute link between physical and life.

Truth is man has an unbelieving attitude to anything he cannot see or touch.

Really? You don't believe in justice? Honour? Truth? Belief?

The greatest mystery given the theories of space and time is that we exist at all....

What constitutes the greatest mystery is a personal judgment, I'd suggest - for me it's why seemingly educated people in a modern society still believe in primitive superstitions.

O.

[Sassy]

Because the physical decays there is no need to think that the essence of life does not carry on.

Except the lack of any evidence for anything living after death, the absence of any evidence for an 'essence of life' and the current evidence of an absolute link between physical and life.

Christ rose from the dead... Not a lack of evidence simply a lack of belief on your part to accept the witness of those who saw him.

Truth is man has an unbelieving attitude to anything he cannot see or touch.

Really? You don't believe in justice? Honour? Truth? Belief?

See how you twist things you read to find an answer it cannot possibly relate to?
The way you think and your inability to address what is actually said is your downfall and problem.

The greatest mystery given the theories of space and time is that we exist at all....

What constitutes the greatest mystery is a personal judgment, I'd suggest - for me it's why seemingly educated people in a modern society still believe in primitive superstitions.

O.

I guess it is the ignorance and refusal of some to admit that whilst the mystery of life is not known that all things a possible till proven differently.  Seems you need more than Opinion.

[Outrider]

Christ rose from the dead... Not a lack of evidence simply a lack of belief on your part to accept the witness of those who saw him.

No, I refuse to accept the edited assertions of vested interests documenting alleged eyewitness testimony decades after the alleged events which completely fail to turn up in the records of the other agencies of the time. You don't have evidence you have an highly suspect claim.

See how you twist things you read to find an answer it cannot possibly relate to?

We have one way of determining reality which relies on physical evidence. We have other ways of determining things, like logic, which don't rely on physical evidence. If you have a way of reliably determining things like gods then by all means explain it, but until you do it remains in the 'unsubstantiated claims' bucket.

The way you think and your inability to address what is actually said is your downfall and problem.

The fact that you don't appear to think for yourself at all, or address reality rather than your magic book is your downfall. The fact that others are like you is both their downfall and, unfortunately, the downfall of innocent bystanders in places like Paris, Beirut, Uganda, Nigeria, it's the inflicting of unnecessary pain and suffering on people in places like India, the US, Malaysia, Pakistan...

I guess it is the ignorance and refusal of some to admit that whilst the mystery of life is not known that all things a possible till proven differently.  Seems you need more than Opinion.

All things are possible until proven otherwise... except that it's not often possible to disprove anything.

In reality, nothing needs to be considered until some reliable reason to accept them is given. I don't have to disprove your idea of God any more than you need to disprove all the other ideas of gods - Thor, Ramu, the Earth Mother, Amun-Ra, Ameratsu Omikami, Marduk, Baba-Yaga, Molag-Bal, Quetzalcoatl, Coyote, Olapa, Xenu...

O.

[Alan Burns]

But even if you deduce that a decision is pre determined, there is the element of timing.  When we make a decision to do something, there has to be an event which triggers this decision into action.  Does our conscious awareness not have the control over when to flick the switch to activate a decision?

The evidence suggests that our awareness is of the fact the switch has been flicked. The decision is made before we are aware we've made the decision. We are aware we have to make a decision, we are aware that our brains are running through the conceivable options, we are aware of what we conclude the options are and we are aware of the ultimate decision, our subjective feeling of making those decisions is an after the fact illusion. We have no more control over our own thoughts than over someone else's, we just get a closer perspective on the process.

O.

So when Lewis Hamilton decides to flick the switch to do an overtaking manover the switch was already flicked beforehand ? 

[Outrider]

So when Lewis Hamilton decides to flick the switch to do an overtaking manover the switch was already flicked beforehand ? 

The 'switch' is inside Lewis Hamilton. The 'switch' though, is a rigourously updated algorithm built from his prior experiences laid over his underlying nature. Lewis' awareness of the decision comes after his brain has already made it.

O.

[Sassy]

Christ rose from the dead... Not a lack of evidence simply a lack of belief on your part to accept the witness of those who saw him.

No, I refuse to accept the edited assertions of vested interests documenting alleged eyewitness testimony decades after the alleged events which completely fail to turn up in the records of the other agencies of the time. You don't have evidence you have an highly suspect claim.

How do you know it is edited?
You accept it is edited without any proof. Selective then aren't you and choosing what you believe with or without evidence. It
does not help your argument.
Evidence... I accept Jesus Christ is the Son of God because of personal evidence. You can put his word to the test but the truth will come out that you are not interested if Christ really existed at all. You just don't want to believe. That is fine, it is your choice but don't make excuses such as it is based on evidence or lack of.

See how you twist things you read to find an answer it cannot possibly relate to?

We have one way of determining reality which relies on physical evidence. We have other ways of determining things, like logic, which don't rely on physical evidence. If you have a way of reliably determining things like gods then by all means explain it, but until you do it remains in the 'unsubstantiated claims' bucket.

So what physical evidence are you using for millions of GALAXIES in space? Note: Not chocolate bars by the way... even Aero isn't that light. Until you want to review and accept evidence for it's correct purpose you cannot come to know the truth. The truth is you do not want to know the truth about God.

The way you think and your inability to address what is actually said is your downfall and problem.

The fact that you don't appear to think for yourself at all, or address reality rather than your magic book is your downfall. The fact that others are like you is both their downfall and, unfortunately, the downfall of innocent bystanders in places like Paris, Beirut, Uganda, Nigeria, it's the inflicting of unnecessary pain and suffering on people in places like India, the US, Malaysia, Pakistan...

Ignorances at it's highest... You cannot make one argument about Christ or God directly can you.
Give up O you show clearly you have never read the bible or reasoned the true concept of God.

I guess it is the ignorance and refusal of some to admit that whilst the mystery of life is not known that all things a possible till proven differently.  Seems you need more than Opinion.

All things are possible until proven otherwise... except that it's not often possible to disprove anything.

In reality, nothing needs to be considered until some reliable reason to accept them is given. I don't have to disprove your idea of God any more than you need to disprove all the other ideas of gods - Thor, Ramu, the Earth Mother, Amun-Ra, Ameratsu Omikami, Marduk, Baba-Yaga, Molag-Bal, Quetzalcoatl, Coyote, Olapa, Xenu...

O.

You cannot logically disprove of anything you have no knowledge about. You haven't even the basic knowledge most atheist have. You think you have circled arguments. But the contents where are they? Your arguments are based in ignorance and stringing words and names together which mean absolutely nothing. You lose again...

[Alan Burns]

So when Lewis Hamilton decides to flick the switch to do an overtaking manover the switch was already flicked beforehand ? 

The 'switch' is inside Lewis Hamilton. The 'switch' though, is a rigourously updated algorithm built from his prior experiences laid over his underlying nature. Lewis' awareness of the decision comes after his brain has already made it.

O.

But surely he has to make the decision in real time, otherwise how could it succeed?

[Outrider]

So when Lewis Hamilton decides to flick the switch to do an overtaking manover the switch was already flicked beforehand ? 

The 'switch' is inside Lewis Hamilton. The 'switch' though, is a rigourously updated algorithm built from his prior experiences laid over his underlying nature. Lewis' awareness of the decision comes after his brain has already made it.

O.

But surely he has to make the decision in real time, otherwise how could it succeed?

You are mistaking the idea of making a decision. He is aware of the decision being made by the programme, it feels like he's making it, but the evidence suggests that it's being made independently of his awareness of it.

O.

[Outrider]

How do you know it is edited?

Textual analysis by scholars shows signs of editing.

You accept it is edited without any proof. Selective then aren't you and choosing what you believe with or without evidence. It does not help your argument.

On the contrary, I accept the extensively peer-reviewed consensus of the historians who study the field.

Evidence... I accept Jesus Christ is the Son of God because of personal evidence.

And how does this 'personal evidence' differ from the delusions of a schizophrenic?

You can put his word to the test but the truth will come out that you are not interested if Christ really existed at all.

I accept the likely existence of someone around whom the idea of Christ is built - I don't accept the depiction of them in the New Testament as a magician avatar of a god.

You just don't want to believe.

It doesn't really matter if you want to believe or not, belief is not a choice. I don't accept your claim because of the lack of evidence in support of it, and the lack of quality of the evidence there is.

That is fine, it is your choice but don't make excuses such as it is based on evidence or lack of.

I don't need to make excuses, I'm perfectly content with the entirely valid reasons I have.

So what physical evidence are you using for millions of GALAXIES in space? Note: Not chocolate bars by the way... even Aero isn't that light. Until you want to review and accept evidence for it's correct purpose you cannot come to know the truth.

I'm using the consistent appearance of measurable radiation sources being detected by the calibrated, validated telescopes around the world and in orbit.

The truth is you do not want to know the truth about God.

I'd love for there to be a truth to know about God, but as an agnostic I don't think it's possible to know.

Ignorances at it's highest... You cannot make one argument about Christ or God directly can you.

Because there's nothing to argue on. You have baseless assertions and a defence that relies on avoiding relying on a solid argument; things like 'personal revelation', 'you know if you seek genuinely'... do you think the gunmen in Paris 'sought genuinely' before they found their conception of God that permitted them to slay people in cold blood?

Give up O you show clearly you have never read the bible or reasoned the true concept of God.

Or, on the other hand, I've read what you've read and come to a different conclusion.

You cannot logically disprove of anything you have no knowledge about.

And, equally logically, you can't prove of something you have no knowledge of. You have no knowledge of God, you have assertions and claims and no way to verify any of it. You believe it, and conflate the sincerity of belief with knowledge. I accept the lack of knowledge, I'm an agnostic, but I don't in the absence of that knowledge accept your unsubstantiatable  claim any more than I accept any of the other unsubstantiatable claims.

You haven't even the basic knowledge most atheist have. You think you have circled arguments. But the contents where are they? Your arguments are based in ignorance and stringing words and names together which mean absolutely nothing. You lose again...

What basic knowledge is it that you think most atheists have? I have my arguments, I don't doubt some of them are shared by other atheists, some of them aren't, just like your particular claims about your religious ideas are variously shared and discarded by other religious believers.

My arguments, in some instances, are based in ignorance, yes: I acknowledge the ignorance and refuse to accept claims because of it. I'm ignorant of any reliable supporting evidence for gods, for instance, so I don't accept the claim.

Have I lost today? Depends on how you look at it - the minute's silence I observed at 11 o'clock suggests that maybe I did, but I'm still here, and so are others like me, and our numbers are growing, and maybe, just maybe, we won't be losing for ever.

O.

[torridon]

There are ongoing projects attempting to create synthetic brains in which the hardwire of the machine is closely modelled on mammalain brains. If we succeed in creating machine consciousness then self awareness would follow downstream. Strange to think that we would then have a thinking consciousness entity that was by any normal measure, not alive. What that means of course is that we need to review what we mean by 'life'.

I can confidently predict that these projects will not succeed in forming conscious awareness from atomic particles. 

That already happens in every head in every day everywhere in the world. We just have to figure out how nature does it, then we will replicate it in better materials.  That's what humans do.

[torridon]

But even if you deduce that a decision is pre determined, there is the element of timing.  When we make a decision to do something, there has to be an event which triggers this decision into action.  Does our conscious awareness not have the control over when to flick the switch to activate a decision?

The evidence suggests that our awareness is of the fact the switch has been flicked. The decision is made before we are aware we've made the decision. We are aware we have to make a decision, we are aware that our brains are running through the conceivable options, we are aware of what we conclude the options are and we are aware of the ultimate decision, our subjective feeling of making those decisions is an after the fact illusion. We have no more control over our own thoughts than over someone else's, we just get a closer perspective on the process.

O.

So when Lewis Hamilton decides to flick the switch to do an overtaking manover the switch was already flicked beforehand ? 

Yes that's right.  Decisions originate in subconscious mind, remember ? In high speed situations like F1 the driver has already made a decision and acted on it before he 'knows' that he has made it.  It's your old mate, consciousness lag again.

[torridon]

Christ rose from the dead... Not a lack of evidence simply a lack of belief on your part to accept the witness of those who saw him.

No, I refuse to accept the edited assertions of vested interests documenting alleged eyewitness testimony decades after the alleged events which completely fail to turn up in the records of the other agencies of the time. You don't have evidence you have an highly suspect claim.

How do you know it is edited?

Have you never seen an ancient codex ?

[Leonard James]

There are ongoing projects attempting to create synthetic brains in which the hardwire of the machine is closely modelled on mammalain brains. If we succeed in creating machine consciousness then self awareness would follow downstream. Strange to think that we would then have a thinking consciousness entity that was by any normal measure, not alive. What that means of course is that we need to review what we mean by 'life'.

Well, what we mean by life (I think) is a clump of organic material which can ingest material, convert it into energy, and reproduce itself. Not too complicated for a robot, I suppose. But the leap from that to a thinking entity is colossal.

[Leonard James]

But a computer has to follow its programming ... we don't! We can make the opposite choice even if only to show that we can.

And what determines whether we make the opposite choice? Our state of mind at the time, which is the composite of a host of deterministic neurons under the mechanistic influence of biochemistry.

All the evidenced elements of thinking are deterministic - it's impossible for the whole to be anything but deterministic unless you introduce something else. Even if you could do that, you'd have to explain how it could be non-deterministic without being random, and therefore not 'will'.

O.

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to differ. The human brain is capable of imagining things that it has never experienced and that have never even happened. Horror fiction is littered with unlikely monsters dreamed up by the authors.

That, to me, can't have a deterministic explanation.

[Outrider]

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to differ.

Indeed, what choice do we have?

The human brain is capable of imagining things that it has never experienced and that have never even happened. Horror fiction is littered with unlikely monsters dreamed up by the authors.

And yet those constructs are composed of various elements of things that we have experienced, and deductions from those experiences.

That, to me, can't have a deterministic explanation.

That, I'm afraid, just smacks of the argument from personal incredulity.

O.

[Leonard James]

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to differ.

Indeed, what choice do we have?

We could go on arguing endlessly and getting nowhere! We have to make a choice!

The human brain is capable of imagining things that it has never experienced and that have never even happened. Horror fiction is littered with unlikely monsters dreamed up by the authors.

And yet those constructs are composed of various elements of things that we have experienced, and deductions from those experiences.

Not so! Evil/good spirits, for example. Pure imagination. Nobody has ever experienced a spirit of any kind.

That, to me, can't have a deterministic explanation.

That, I'm afraid, just smacks of the argument from personal incredulity.

Not believing obvious rubbish can hardly be called incredulity. 

[torridon]

There are ongoing projects attempting to create synthetic brains in which the hardwire of the machine is closely modelled on mammalain brains. If we succeed in creating machine consciousness then self awareness would follow downstream. Strange to think that we would then have a thinking consciousness entity that was by any normal measure, not alive. What that means of course is that we need to review what we mean by 'life'.

Well, what we mean by life (I think) is a clump of organic material which can ingest material, convert it into energy, and reproduce itself. Not too complicated for a robot, I suppose. But the leap from that to a thinking entity is colossal.

Yes I know.  The intuition we all have, that there is life and there is non-life and all stuff that exists can be classified in one camp or the other, it's too simplistic, it's going to have to go.  It would be a curious state of affairs if AI researchers got to creating machine consciousness ahead of biogenesis researchers trying to create organic cellular life in the lab   

[Leonard James]

There are ongoing projects attempting to create synthetic brains in which the hardwire of the machine is closely modelled on mammalain brains. If we succeed in creating machine consciousness then self awareness would follow downstream. Strange to think that we would then have a thinking consciousness entity that was by any normal measure, not alive. What that means of course is that we need to review what we mean by 'life'.

Well, what we mean by life (I think) is a clump of organic material which can ingest material, convert it into energy, and reproduce itself. Not too complicated for a robot, I suppose. But the leap from that to a thinking entity is colossal.

Yes I know.  The intuition we all have, that there is life and there is non-life and all stuff that exists can be classified in one camp or the other, it's too simplistic, it's going to have to go.  It would be a curious state of affairs if AI researchers got to creating machine consciousness ahead of biogenesis researchers trying to create organic cellular life in the lab

I would love to live another couple of hundred years to see what happens ... but I suppose that wish would still be there no matter how long I lived! 

[Outrider]

Not so! Evil/good spirits, for example. Pure imagination. Nobody has ever experienced a spirit of any kind.

We don't know that for sure - you can't 'disprove' spirits. We have a level of intelligence and reasoning that it appears other animals don't have, and we've had various hypotheses to explain that. Spirits - disembodied pieces of intelligence - that attach to us but not to them explains that. Not well, and not with evidence, but it explains the available evidence, and leads to immense volumes of Manga... so it's not all bad.

That, to me, can't have a deterministic explanation.

That, I'm afraid, just smacks of the argument from personal incredulity.

Not believing obvious rubbish can hardly be called incredulity. 

And yet, in the absence of any other reasonable explanation, we have determinism. There's no reason this can't come from determinism, you just don't like that conclusion. I don't like the conclusion, either, but that doesn't mean that it's not valid.

O.

[/quote]