Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I see no problem in attributing them to natural selection, since they are both survival/reproduction advantages.

But before they can be naturally selected, they have to come into existence, so my query is : Is it feasible for perception and free will come into existence by random mutations?

We will not be able to answer this question until we can define how conscious perception and free will can function in a purely material environment.

[Leonard James]

But before they can be naturally selected, they have to come into existence, so my query is : Is it feasible for perception and free will come into existence by random mutations?

Well the senses (the ability to see, hear, smell, feel etc) did, and they are all part of perception.

We will not be able to answer this question until we can define how conscious perception and free will can function in a purely material environment.

The evolved solely FOR a purely material environment.

[Alan Burns]

Well the senses (the ability to see, hear, smell, feel etc) did, and they are all part of perception.

The evolved solely FOR a purely material environment.

Animals initially reacted to their senses, but we know us humans can consciously perceive this information rather than just react to it.

But we still need a material mechanism to generate conscious perception and free will if these attributes are formed from random mutations.

[Leonard James]

Animals initially reacted to their senses, but we know us humans can consciously perceive this information rather than just react to it.

I don't understand you, Alan. How could animals react to their senses if they didn't perceive them?

But we still need a material mechanism to generate conscious perception and free will if these attributes are formed from random mutations.

The brain itself is the mechanism that perceives and coordinates, and then uses its free will to decide on a course of action.

[Gordon]

Animals initially reacted to their senses, but we know us humans can consciously perceive this information rather than just react to it.

But we still need a material mechanism to generate conscious perception and free will if these attributes are formed from random mutations.

You now seem to be making up theobabble as you go along, Alan. You have a brain, which is certainly material, so perhaps you should engage yours in reviewing your dependence on fallacies. 

[Alan Burns]

I don't understand you, Alan. How could animals react to their senses if they didn't perceive them?

A computerised robot can be programmed to react to the information it receives through its detectors, but it will not consciously perceive this information, because we can't replicate conscious perception in robotic technology.  To put it bluntly, we do not know what defines conscious perception.  Hence we do not know for certain if it can be produced by any material mechanism.

[Nearly Sane]

A computerised robot can be programmed to react to the information it receives through its detectors, but it will not consciously perceive this information, because we can't replicate conscious perception in robotic technology.  To put it bluntly, we do not know what defines conscious perception.  Hence we do not know for certain if it can be produced by any material mechanism.

Err yes we do since we are material. We have no evidence or method for establishing anything other than material, as you have already admitted.

[Gordon]

A computerised robot can be programmed to react to the information it receives through its detectors, but it will not consciously perceive this information, because we can't replicate conscious perception in robotic technology.  To put it bluntly, we do not know what defines conscious perception.  Hence we do not know for certain if it can be produced by any material mechanism.

We aren't robots, so this isn't a useful comparison as things stand.

Since you aren't able to give us chapter and verse on an 'immaterial mechanism', although this does sound like an oxymoron, and since our biology is material perhaps you would do better to say 'don't know' and await further materially based knowledge - instead of, as you invariably do, falling into your personal incredulity fallacy trap again.

[Leonard James]

A computerised robot can be programmed to react to the information it receives through its detectors, but it will not consciously perceive this information, because we can't replicate conscious perception in robotic technology.  To put it bluntly, we do not know what defines conscious perception.  Hence we do not know for certain if it can be produced by any material mechanism.

But humans are NOT computerised robots, they are evolved living beings which perceive and react to external stimuli. Robots can react to programming, but they can't think and feel

[Nearly Sane]

But humans are NOT computerised robots, they are evolved living beings which perceive and react to external stimuli. Robots can react to programming, but they can't think and feel

We don't really know what that means. If we build a computer that passes the Turing test, how would we know that it wasn't 'thinking and feeling '?

Again we are back at assuming there is thinking and feeling because it looks to us that there is. To be fair to Alan, this is not the easy stuff

[Alan Burns]

We aren't robots, so this isn't a useful comparison as things stand.

Since you aren't able to give us chapter and verse on an 'immaterial mechanism', although this does sound like an oxymoron, and since our biology is material perhaps you would do better to say 'don't know' and await further materially based knowledge - instead of, as you invariably do, falling into your personal incredulity fallacy trap again.

I am not claiming that conscious awareness and free will are proof that we have a spiritual soul.  But the fact that these attributes currently have no material definition does open up the possibility of a spiritual soul which can perceive our brain content and interact to induce free thoughts and actions.  And it would confirm what most humans have come to believe in over the last few thousand years.

[Nearly Sane]

I am not claiming that conscious awareness and free will are proof that we have a spiritual soul.  But the fact that these attributes currently have no material definition does open up the possibility of a spiritual soul which can perceive our brain content and interact to induce free thoughts and actions.  And it would confirm what most humans have come to believe in over the last few thousand years.

You haven't shown we have free will, only asserted it. Note this has been pointed out to you numerous times so stop stating it as a fact

Nothing in a lack of knowledge about something allows any possibility to be anything more than a guess and since you can't offer any sensible definition of what you are positing, ir's not even a guess.

And nothing opens up or closes the possibility of something that isn't defined.

[Leonard James]

We don't really know what that means. If we build a computer that passes the Turing test, how would we know that it wasn't 'thinking and feeling '?

Again we are back at assuming there is thinking and feeling because it looks to us that there is. To be fair to Alan, this is not the easy stuff

I can see that this is going to get too complicated for me again. 

I will go with what seems obvious to me, because life works well that way.

[torridon]

A computerised robot can be programmed to react to the information it receives through its detectors, but it will not consciously perceive this information, because we can't replicate conscious perception in robotic technology. 

Robotic technology in the future will probably incorporate insights dervied from neuroscience though. A computer architected on neural principals of a brain presumably would be capable of developing consciousness.

[torridon]

Animals initially reacted to their senses, but we know us humans can consciously perceive this information rather than just react to it.

Yes and so do all higher creatures. Any creature with eyes and ears and nose has conscious perception, it is not a human only thing.  Conscious awareness is generated by a mammalian brain; humans are mammals and so we have inherited this uniquitous functionality.

[torridon]

But humans are NOT computerised robots, they are evolved living beings which perceive and react to external stimuli. Robots can react to programming, but they can't think and feel

Robots of the future probably will though. As it is, we like to think of ourselves as being alive; but I am made entirely of dead stuff; a billion billion carbon atoms in me,not a single one of them is alive. If natural selection can create thinking breathing life out of completely dead stuff, we will probably work out how to replicate that using better materials in the future.  Thats what we do.

[Alan Burns]

You haven't shown we have free will, only asserted it. Note this has been pointed out to you numerous times so stop stating it as a fact

By free will I simply mean whatever gives us the ability to make a conscious choice.

I am aware or the materialist argument that this choice may have been made sub consciously before we become aware of it, but there is still a choice being made and it appears in our conscious awareness.

[Nearly Sane]

By free will I simply mean whatever gives us the ability to make a conscious choice.

I am aware or the materialist argument that this choice may have been made sub consciously before we become aware of it, but there is still a choice being made and it appears in our conscious awareness.

There is still in that sense a choice made by any computer programme. This version you are talking about is not strong free will, indeed it isn't a compatibilist version, it is purely deterministic and isn't what you were talking about before.

Try this as a basic introduction and then try restating your position as with the above post you have effectively contradicted yourself on what free will is.


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/


And rereading your post you contradict yourself within it. First of all you talk about a conscious choice, and then about that choice being made sub consciously as if that is the same thing. It isn't, and even within that there is a problem with your representation of the idea of how other think about the subconscious by implying that they think it is just li a conscious decision.
Part of the reason, I think, for the confusion you have is you are again trying to shift the burden of proof without possibly even understanding you are doing as I covered in the previous post, which you edited out, and was just a restatement of what you have already admitted, is that your claim lacks a methodology, and until you have that you aren't even making a guess.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, and as an aside to Alan, there is a mi statement about people being materialists as if this is, as Vlad would point out, philosophical materialist. This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from not having any methodology that covers a non material claim.

[torridon]

I am aware or the materialist argument that this choice may have been made sub consciously before we become aware of it, but there is still a choice being made and it appears in our conscious awareness.

1.  This is not a 'materialist argument'.  This is a finding from cognitive research and it is available to all who would understand human cognition.

2. A choice that appears later in our conscious awareness is not a conscious choice, clearly

[Gordon]

I am not claiming that conscious awareness and free will are proof that we have a spiritual soul.

That is your hypothesis though, is it not? If so, then you haven't provided a means of defining your terms or described a method for testing your claim, so this idea of yours really is just a fallacious 'God of the Gaps' assertion contrived to provide a personal narrative into which your 'God' can be inserted.

But the fact that these attributes currently have no material definition does open up the possibility of a spiritual soul which can perceive our brain content and interact to induce free thoughts and actions.

A non sequitur, since it seems reasonable to consider consciousness is an aspect of our biology, alongside our other mental faculties, then it must have a biological explanation and that we currently don't know the precise details doesn't mean they aren't knowable at some point, but this knowledge gap isn't sufficient justification for you to make your claim of a 'spiritual soul' being a 'possibility' without providing a basis for your claim since if you can't, and the burden of proof is yours, this is an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity.

I could just as easily claim that we are conscious because in pre-human times an alien race left a special machine buried deep in the planet that emits 'consciousness waves' and they then altered the DNA of proto-human species so that as homo sapiens evolved we alone of all the species on Earth could detect these waves: if I did you'd rightly expect me to have a method to define and then demonstrate the existence of these consciousness waves as a starter for 10 - and if I couldn't even do that, but I still claimed they existed, then you'd be correct to just dismiss my idea as being nothing more that fallacious fantasy: as far as I can see, Alan, your 'soul' claim is on a par with my deliberately ridiculous 'consciousness waves' example.

In addition we do know that all our mental capacities and sensory responses (even the autonomic ones we aren't consciously aware of) are exclusively biological, which is why scientists studying consciousness are using methods focused on our biology and not on theology.

And it would confirm what most humans have come to believe in over the last few thousand years.

Possibly, but only to the extent of confirming what people believed, which isn't the same thing as saying what they believed is true in reality, and especially so when these beliefs are grounded in the religious/cultural superstitions of antiquity that were limited by the available knowledge of these times - you're stuck in fallacies, again!

[Alan Burns]

1.  This is not a 'materialist argument'.  This is a finding from cognitive research and it is available to all who would understand human cognition.

2. A choice that appears later in our conscious awareness is not a conscious choice, clearly

As I have said previously, our conscious self can invoke whatever it takes to implement a conscious choice in real time.  Otherwise there would be a lot more accidents involving drivers who make a conscious decision to overtake when the conditions are perceived to be safe.

[floo]

As I have said previously, our conscious self can invoke whatever it takes to implement a conscious choice in real time.  Otherwise there would be a lot more accidents involving drivers who make a conscious decision to overtake when the conditions are perceived to be safe.

But that would apply to other species of animals as well who way up the pros and cons to some extent, like an animal stalking its prey.

[torridon]

As I have said previously, our conscious self can invoke whatever it takes to implement a conscious choice in real time.  Otherwise there would be a lot more accidents involving drivers who make a conscious decision to overtake when the conditions are perceived to be safe.

And as has been explained to you many times already by numerous posters, we cannot and do not actually make conscious choices in real time. Conscious perception always lags half a second or so behind reality. David Eagleman included an explanation of consciousness lag in his first episode on the brain last night btw.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Len,

Thank you, Blue. I see now where I have been mistaken, and I apologise if I have misled anybody.

I had wrongly assumed that there was a known species from which apes/humans had descended, and that it was more like a modern ape than like a human ... hence my assumption that the human had changed more radically than the ape.

I will have to adjust my understanding! 

You my friend are a very gracious man.