Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

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.

You must look at what is written, Alan. I said that evolution does not REQUIRE an intelligent designer, not that it proves that an intelligent designer(or more than one) is not responsible. I was responding to your point that complexity is 'undisputed evidence' of an intelligent designer. Clearly, it is not. What you maintain is by the by, as you now seem to be talking about abiogenesis, and simply giving your belief on the subject. Please stick to the point.

[Enki]

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.

I don't suffer from your personal incredulity feelings, Alan

[Stranger]

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.

Your use of the term 'biological robot' seems to be little more than an attempt to denigrate the idea that biology actually produces consciousness by the use of language, rather than any actual argument.

You have already admitted that you don't know how consciousness works and yet you keep on making unsupported assertions about it. How do you know it's 'an entity in its own right'?

[Maeght]

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.

Maintain all you like but just don't expect anyone else to see them as anything other than assertions.

[Shaker]

Remember kids: trying to have a discussion with Alan is like using a rocking chair.

It gives you something to do for a while, but you won't get anywhere.

[SusanDoris]

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.

As to be expected, I suppose, you trot out your regular non-replies which, as far as I'm concerned, are like being surrounded by candyfloss or being stifled by an impenetrable barrier of cottonwool. Fortunately for most of us, the questions you are asked by those with a better understanding of factual knowledge are all interesting and educational and, one can only hope, equally so for those who browse and read here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Maintain all you like but just don't expect anyone else to see them as anything other than assertions.

Quite. Funnily enough, ants are a good analogue for neurons - complex phenomena emerge from ant behaviour when individually stupid ants communicate with their neighbours, and it's conceptually no great stretch to reason that the same thing happens when individually stupid neurons communicate with their neighbours. The difference of course is that there are bajillions more neurons and connections in a brain than there are ants and connections in a colony, so the complexity of the properties that emerge from brains is hugely greater than those from ants.

AB however essentially I think just hates the idea of that because his religious beliefs require there to be a "soul" to do the work. He has no argument against it though, so he's reduced to logical fallacies and closing his ears to the rebuttals he can't process. It's cognitive dissonance I guess, but it's quite chilling when you see it close up.   

[torridon]

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.

Clearly you didn't try my thought experiment from yesterday then. All you need to do is go to sleep at night, you don't need to spend thousands on high tech brain scanning equipment; what the evidence suggests, is that the 'self' is not a thing, like an ankle or a liver, it is a process, part of the action of consciousness. When consciousness is lost, so is the self.

[Shaker]

AB however essentially I think just hates the idea of that because his religious beliefs rest on it. He has no argument against it though, so he's reduced to logical fallacies and closing his ears to the rebuttals he can't process. It's cognitive dissonance I guess, but it's quite chilling when you see it close up.   

It's not just nuts that you find in a nutshell - perfectly put.

[ippy]

A B you might as well not put any of your ideas forward and just answer anything that's put to you with, 'god did all of it', that about sums up the totality of all of your posts here. 

ippy

[Maeght]

Maeght,

Quite. Funnily enough, ants are a good analogue for neurons - complex phenomena emerge from ant behaviour when individually stupid ants communicate with their neighbours, and it's conceptually no great stretch to reason that the same thing happens when individually stupid neurons communicate with their neighbours. The difference of course is that there are bajillions more neurons and connections in a brain than there are ants and connections in a colony, so the complexity of the properties that emerge from brains is hugely greater than those from ants.

AB however essentially I think just hates the idea of that because his religious beliefs require there to be a "soul" to do the work. He has no argument against it though, so he's reduced to logical fallacies and closing his ears to the rebuttals he can't process. It's cognitive dissonance I guess, but it's quite chilling when you see it close up.   

Indeed. I mostly try not to bother 'engaging' with AB but occasionally dip in. It is pointless but hard to resist at times.

[Alan Burns]

As to be expected, I suppose, you trot out your regular non-replies which, as far as I'm concerned, are like being surrounded by candyfloss or being stifled by an impenetrable barrier of cottonwool. Fortunately for most of us, the questions you are asked by those with a better understanding of factual knowledge are all interesting and educational and, one can only hope, equally so for those who browse and read here.

I try to reply as honestly as I can, but it does not always fit in with what some would like me to say.

[Alan Burns]

Clearly you didn't try my thought experiment from yesterday then. All you need to do is go to sleep at night, you don't need to spend thousands on high tech brain scanning equipment; what the evidence suggests, is that the 'self' is not a thing, like an ankle or a liver, it is a process, part of the action of consciousness. When consciousness is lost, so is the self.

When the physical brain shuts down, so does the soul's window into this word.  You are much more than a process!

[Sebastian Toe]

When the physical brain shuts down, so does the soul's window into this word.  You are much more than a process!

Do you reckon that your soul is doing anything when your brain shuts down?

[torridon]

When the physical brain shuts down, so does the soul's window into this word.  You are much more than a process!

And so it goes on, you merely trot out your stock reply rather than take the trouble to engage with evidence and reason.  So much easier I suppose.

[Stranger]

You are much more than a process!

What is the point of endlessly making unsupported assertions about something you have admitted that you don't understand?

[Maeght]

When the physical brain shuts down, so does the soul's window into this word.  You are much more than a process!

Alan - if you put 'I believe' at the front of every post perhaps that would help. I think we all recognise that these are just your beliefs but it is when you assert them to be facts which is the problem. Just a thought.

[Alan Burns]

What is the point of endlessly making unsupported assertions about something you have admitted that you don't understand?

I may not understand how conscious awareness works, but I do know enough about material science to say that it can't be defined by material reactions alone.  There is much talk about awareness being achieved by information flows through the neurological network of the brain, But information is not information until it is perceived - and the big question is how can the content of many brain cells be perceived by another material entity?  It leads to a circular problem of how the information in any material entity can be perceived, rather than just induce a reaction in other material entities?  As I have said previously, this is a very complex subject which is difficult to elaborate on in a forum such as this, so I am trying to give a brief indication of the problem.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I may not understand how conscious awareness works…

Clearly. Your problem though is that you have therefore no basis to assert it to be "physically impossible" for consciousness to be an emergent property of brains. Worse still, you also understand even less about how “soul” works so why opt for that instead?

…but I do know enough about material science to say that it can't be defined by material reactions alone.

Your posts here tell us that you know no such thing, not least because you have no argument of any kind to support your notion on the non-material.

There is much talk about awareness being achieved by information flows through the neurological network of the brain, But information is not information until it is perceived…

Wrong again. Information is information whether it’s “perceived” or not. You seem to be confusing “information” with “knowledge” here.

- and the big question is how can the content of many brain cells be perceived by another material entity?

Of course it isn’t. Consciousness perceives itself – that’s the point!

It leads to a circular problem of how the information in any material entity can be perceived, rather than just induce a reaction in other material entities?  As I have said previously, this is a very complex subject which is difficult to elaborate on in a forum such as this, so I am trying to give a brief indication of the problem.

That’s a non sequitur. Your premise is false, so so is your conclusion about “the problem”.

Your post fails in other words on pretty much every possible level.

[Stranger]

I may not understand how conscious awareness works, but I do know enough about material science to say that it can't be defined by material reactions alone.

Well publish this amazing knowledge and no doubt in due course claim your Nobel Prize, and stop wasting time on this forum!

I don't understand how you cannot see how silly this claim is. You are saying that something you don't understand cannot possibly be the result of something else that nobody fully understands.

It's plain daft.

There is much talk about awareness being achieved by information flows through the neurological network of the brain, But information is not information until it is perceived - and the big question is how can the content of many brain cells be perceived by another material entity?

If you don't understand how conscious awareness works, how do you know that this is part of the process? Why should anything else need to perceive the "content of many brain cells"? If you don't know how perception works, you cannot insist that the brain cannot do it by itself.

[Maeght]

I may not understand how conscious awareness works, but I do know enough about material science to say that it can't be defined by material reactions alone.

On what basis do you think you 'know enough' Alan? What is your actual knowledge base?

[Alan Burns]

Wrong again. Information is information whether it’s “perceived” or not. You seem to be confusing “information” with “knowledge” here.

What we perceive as information is just atomic particles - nothing else.  Outside human perception information has no meaning.  It can only exist as information within human perception

Consciousness perceives itself – that’s the point!

I don't think so.   

[ippy]

On what basis do you think you 'know enough' Alan? What is your actual knowledge base?

In this instance Maeght has addressed this question to you A B, I've seen this same question put to you by others, phrased in various differing ways and I've never seen you give an answer to this question, that makes any sense.

Looks like your bluff has been called and you're not up to it A B; any chance of clearing this one up?

NO! I didn't think so.

ippy

[torridon]

I may not understand how conscious awareness works, but I do know enough about material science to say that it can't be defined by material reactions alone.  There is much talk about awareness being achieved by information flows through the neurological network of the brain, But information is not information until it is perceived - and the big question is how can the content of many brain cells be perceived by another material entity?  It leads to a circular problem of how the information in any material entity can be perceived, rather than just induce a reaction in other material entities?  As I have said previously, this is a very complex subject which is difficult to elaborate on in a forum such as this, so I am trying to give a brief indication of the problem.

Firstly, if we do not fully understand how something works, then we need to keep an open mind rather than claiming we 'know enough'.

Secondly, 'material science' is so nineteenth century; in reality, there is just 'science', and the frontiers of our scientific knowledge now transcend earlier naive understandings of matter and energy.

Thirdly, your concept of information is similarly superficial.  It might be good enough for everyday use, but the concept of information is far more profound and subtle in science.  At this level it is nonsense to claim that only human brains can perceive information. In science, information is arguably the most profound concept of all, transcending not just biological systems, but space, time, matter and energy,

[torridon]

What we perceive as information is just atomic particles - nothing else.  Outside human perception information has no meaning.  It can only exist as information within human perception.

What nonsense.  See previous post. All life forms process information, that is what life is, a phenomenon of energy and information processing. Any prey animal that could not parse the information captured through its eyes would very quickly exclude itself from the gene pool.