Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Me too ...

[Alan Burns]

Ultimately, complexity emerges from simplicity, not the other way round.

You can't claim this as a general rule, because there is much evidence to show that random unguided forces are destructive, not creative.

Random forces may well be able to facilitate some fine tuning on something which is already complex, but to extrapolate this into assuming that they can create the complexity in the first place is optimism in the extreme.

[ekim]

AB,

 We do know that wetness is an emergent property of water molecules (none of which are individually wet).

In the context of the 'emergent property' idea, as there is a 'knower' (consciousness) involved in deciding upon 'wetness', would it follow that the explanation would be that it is the result of two emergent properties merging?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

I shall be sitting here watching for the reply.....

I fear you'll be waiting a long time. I asked him something similar a while back - effectively what would he do if science one day came up with a mistakotron that showed his faith beliefs to be wrong - but, predictably, he just ignored the question. 

[Alan Burns]

Now let me put the same argument to you:

If science is able to give a complete answer which solves the problem of conscious awareness, and this answer excludes your idea of a soul, what then?

If it ever does get there, (which I very much doubt), the mechanisms will be so complex as to render them to be undisputed evidence of intelligently guided design.  And whatever does comprise the "self" will still be offered new life in heaven.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

In the context of the 'emergent property' idea, as there is a 'knower' (consciousness) involved in deciding upon 'wetness', would it follow that the explanation would be that it is the result of two emergent properties merging?

Sort of. We/consciousness don’t so much “decide” on wetness as recognise it, but essentially yes – wetness and consciousness are two emergent properties that interact.

[Stranger]

If it ever does get there, (which I very much doubt), the mechanisms will be so complex as to render them to be undisputed evidence of intelligently guided design.  And whatever does comprise the "self" will still be offered new life in heaven.

Yet another statement of blind, unreasoning faith...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If it ever does get there, (which I very much doubt), the mechanisms will be so complex as to render them to be undisputed evidence of intelligently guided design.  And whatever does comprise the "self" will still be offered new life in heaven.

That's ludicrous. Your (very bad) argument is, "I can't imagine a naturalistic cause for consciousness, therefore god". The question you were asked concerned how you'd react if a full and naturalistic explanation for consciousness was discovered, and you've just said that because it would be complex that complexity would be evidence for god.

Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Yet another statement of blind, unreasoning faith...

That's all he has. That and bucket loads of obtuseness.

[torridon]

Ultimately, complexity emerges from simplicity, not the other way round.

You can't claim this as a general rule, because there is much evidence to show that random unguided forces are destructive, not creative.

In the short term, and locally, perhaps that is right. But you are ignoring the world 'ultimately'.  Ultimately, complexity derived from simplicity.  Big houses are usually made of little bricks; but little bricks are never ever made of big houses.

[torridon]

If it ever does get there, (which I very much doubt), the mechanisms will be so complex as to render them to be undisputed evidence of intelligently guided design.  And whatever does comprise the "self" will still be offered new life in heaven.

Makes no sense.  The 'self' is not a thing, it is a process; a process so ephemeral that it does not even survive going to sleep at night, never mind death.

[ekim]

ekim,

Sort of. We/consciousness don’t so much “decide” on wetness as recognise it, but essentially yes – wetness and consciousness are two emergent properties that interact.

Does it follow that the potential to emerge into different properties has always been there?

[Enki]

If it ever does get there, (which I very much doubt), the mechanisms will be so complex as to render them to be undisputed evidence of intelligently guided design.  And whatever does comprise the "self" will still be offered new life in heaven.

Complexity is not evidence, and certainly not 'undisputed evidence' of an intelligently guided design(or designer). Evolution, which can result in huge complexity, does not require an intelligent designer. Your statement that the 'self' will still be offered new life in heaven is pure assertion, as you have not given reasons which establish any 'self', nor its quality of surviving mortality, nor the existence of any sort of 'heaven.'

I tried to answer your thought experiment as straightforwardly as I could, but unfortunately you haven't seen fit to answer mine in a similar vein, because you have simply replaced 'soul' with 'self', completely disregarding the point of my thought scenario, which suggests clearly that a soul is excluded. I find that disappointing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Does it follow that the potential to emerge into different properties has always been there?

Depends what you mean by "always" but if you think the universe has always been, as emergence appears to be a universal phenomenon then yes.

[Alan Burns]

Makes no sense.  The 'self' is not a thing, it is a process

You seem to be talking yourself out of existence!

[Maeght]

If it ever does get there, (which I very much doubt), the mechanisms will be so complex as to render them to be undisputed evidence of intelligently guided design.  And whatever does comprise the "self" will still be offered new life in heaven.

Statement of belief not fact.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's ludicrous. Your (very bad) argument is, "I can't imagine a naturalistic cause for consciousness, therefore god". The question you were asked concerned how you'd react if a full and naturalistic explanation for consciousness was discovered, and you've just said that because it would be complex that complexity would be evidence for god.

Just finding out how something works does not lead to the conclusion that it must have been brought into existence by natural causes.  God manipulates nature just as humans to to bring into existence their intelligently designed creations.

[wigginhall]

We go back to the argument from design.   My, that leaf looks complicated, all that photosynthesis going on, it's too complicated to understand, therefore God. 

[Alan Burns]

Evolution, which can result in huge complexity, does not require an intelligent designer

That statement can't be proven unless you can show that every beneficial mutation was the result of unguided forces.  I maintain that life as we know it could never have come into existence without intelligent guidance of the apparently natural forces which brought us into existence.

[ekim]

ekim,

Depends what you mean by "always" but if you think the universe has always been, as emergence appears to be a universal phenomenon then yes.

Search over.  Close the topic. Elohim is the potential to emerge.  All we have to do is merge with the potential. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just finding out how something works does not lead to the conclusion that it must have been brought into existence by natural causes.

No-one says it does - that's a straw man. What it does do though is give the lie to the argument you've been attempting - namely that the absence of a complete understanding of consciousness means that it's "physically impossible" that it could have occurred naturally.

The reasons for concluding that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain have been set out variously for you, albeit that by and large you've just ignored them.   

God...

What "God"? You've yet to demonstrate such a thing.

...manipulates nature just as humans to to bring into existence their intelligently designed creations.

Assertion entirely unsupported by reason or evidence noted.

[Alan Burns]

I tried to answer your thought experiment as straightforwardly as I could, but unfortunately you haven't seen fit to answer mine in a similar vein, because you have simply replaced 'soul' with 'self', completely disregarding the point of my thought scenario, which suggests clearly that a soul is excluded. I find that disappointing.

Unless you really are a biological robot, I fail to see how you can disregard the "self" as being an entity in its own right.

[Stranger]

That statement can't be proven unless you can show that every beneficial mutation was the result of unguided forces.  I maintain that life as we know it could never have come into existence without intelligent guidance of the apparently natural forces which brought us into existence.

- sigh -

More blind, unthinking faith...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That statement can't be proven unless you can show that every beneficial mutation was the result of unguided forces.  I maintain that life as we know it could never have come into existence without intelligent guidance of the apparently natural forces which brought us into existence.

That you maintain something doesn't make you less wrong. Find out something about evolution and you might avoid this kind of mistake in future.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Unless you really are a biological robot, I fail to see how you can disregard the "self" as being an entity in its own right.

"Biological robot" is a pejorative, but yes - that's essentially what you are. We all are.