Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Just to back up the sterling posts from SKoS on here, try considering this. A choice will be either something with a cause, determined, or something without a cause, random. These cover all scenarios since it is either a, or not a from a logical perspective. Ergo Alan's position is logically incoherent.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Of course it bothers me that you have not found God yet, so I hope and pray that you will one day.

Which again is not an answer to the question that I actually asked.


I have told you that I have no belief that the God you talk about exists. You claim that you are called by this (omniscient. omnipotent, omnipresent)God to come here and witness to the truth of this God and therefore, open up the possibility of this God.

I am telling you that you have succeeded (rightly or wrongly) in moving me from my original position before I heard your arguments to a new position in which your God claims are LESS likely to be true.

How does this make you feel?

To repeat, I am further away form believing in God (albeit by a small amount) than ever because of the arguments/assertions you have made here.

What does this say about the omniscient God you claim to believe in?

[Alan Burns]

Just to back up the sterling posts from SKoS on here, try considering this. A choice will be either something with a cause, determined, or something without a cause, random. These cover all scenarios since it is either a, or not a from a logical perspective. Ergo Alan's position is logically incoherent.

There is always a cause behind a conscious choice.  The question is simply whether is is a spiritual cause effected by the conscious will of the human soul, or a physical cause derived from the uncontrollable nature of material cause and effect chains.

[Nearly Sane]

There is always a cause behind a conscious choice.  The question is simply whether is is a spiritual cause effected by the conscious will of the human soul, or a physical cause derived from the uncontrollable nature of material cause and effect chains.

makes no difference if you call it a spiritual cayse. Still deterministic. None of the above adresses your logical incoherence of arguing that there is something which is neither A nor not A

[Gordon]

The question is simply whether is is a spiritual cause effected by the conscious will of the human soul, or a physical cause derived from the uncontrollable nature of material cause and effect chains.

You have no basis to argue the the former and how you've expressed the latter just screams hyperbole, since 'cause and effect chains' aren't necessarily 'uncontrollable', in the sense of determinism implying things being randomly chaotic.

You seem very confused, Alan.

[Stranger]

The question is simply whether is is a spiritual cause effected by the conscious will of the human soul, or a physical cause derived from the uncontrollable nature of material cause and effect chains.

No, that is the question you keep answering in order to avoid the more important logical question: does the "conscious will of the human soul" produces its choices deterministically?

We all know that you don't think choices are made by the "uncontrollable nature of material cause and effect chains" - so please stop repeating it and answer the question above, that you keep avoiding.

[Alan Burns]

Just to clarify another point about conscious perception.  There have been suggestions that conscious perception in the human brain is an emergent property of the information flow through the complex network of neurons, and one day it should be possible to replicate this using man made computers when they can achieve sufficient complexity.  This is simply not possible, because no matter how complex the physical network, it is still just processing information - not perceiving it.  People do not seem to recognise the profound difference between information processing and perception of information.  There is no physical definition for perception of information, because in order for it to be perceived, you need a perceiver - and it is simply not possible to define a conscious entity of perception with material particles.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to clarify another point about conscious perception.  There have been suggestions that conscious perception in the human brain is an emergent property of the information flow through the complex network of neurons, and one day it should be possible to replicate this using man made computers when they can achieve sufficient complexity.  This is simply not possible, because no matter how complex the physical network, it is still just processing information - not perceiving it.  People do not seem to recognise the profound difference between information processing and perception of information.  There is no physical definition for perception of information, because in order for it to be perceived, you need a perceiver - and it is simply not possible to define a conscious entity of perception with material particles.

You need to show your working, not just your incredulity.

[Stranger]

Just to clarify another point about conscious perception.  There have been suggestions that conscious perception in the human brain is an emergent property of the information flow through the complex network of neurons, and one day it should be possible to replicate this using man made computers when they can achieve sufficient complexity.  This is simply not possible, because no matter how complex the physical network, it is still just processing information - not perceiving it.  People do not seem to recognise the profound difference between information processing and perception of information.  There is no physical definition for perception of information, because in order for it to be perceived, you need a perceiver - and it is simply not possible to define a conscious entity of perception with material particles.

You don't know how conscious perception works, so you have no basis for these assertions.

[wigginhall]

That is the point of Tegmark's remark,  that experience is what information feels like being processed in the brain.   Of course, neuroscientists have not worked out how that works, but to say that they never will, is assuming omniscience.   It means that the brain can produce representations that are self-referential, or have feedback loops.   Again, I don't see why this is impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to clarify another point about conscious perception.  There have been suggestions that conscious perception in the human brain is an emergent property of the information flow through the complex network of neurons, and one day it should be possible to replicate this using man made computers when they can achieve sufficient complexity.  This is simply not possible, because no matter how complex the physical network, it is still just processing information - not perceiving it.  People do not seem to recognise the profound difference between information processing and perception of information.  There is no physical definition for perception of information, because in order for it to be perceived, you need a perceiver - and it is simply not possible to define a conscious entity of perception with material particles.

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of emergence, and therefore the explanation of consciousness as an emergent property of brains. The current paradigm is that, given sufficient complexity, then self-awareness emerges. That's the point. There's no need for a separate "perceiver" at all - just a system of such complexity that it becomes self-referential without needing to add a (logically incoherent) extra something to the mix.

That you take for your frame of reference computers that - for now at least - aren't complex enough to do that is just your reference point error.

[Gordon]

Just to clarify another point about conscious perception.  There have been suggestions that conscious perception in the human brain is an emergent property of the information flow through the complex network of neurons, and one day it should be possible to replicate this using man made computers when they can achieve sufficient complexity.  This is simply not possible, because no matter how complex the physical network, it is still just processing information - not perceiving it.  People do not seem to recognise the profound difference between information processing and perception of information.  There is no physical definition for perception of information, because in order for it to be perceived, you need a perceiver - and it is simply not possible to define a conscious entity of perception with material particles.

Forget the computers, Alan, they are, it seems, a distraction since we're talking people.

So tell me, since you're arguing in terms of separating processing and perception from consciousness, when I process a visual stimulus might this not a part of the perception mechanism which also involves consciousness in some way that isn't yet fully understood?

Seems to me that if you don't know how consciousness works then you're position on perception and processing is without foundation, and looks like a contrivance so you can claim 'souls'.

[wigginhall]

Ah, but Alan is omniscient.  He just knows that perception cannot be described in terms  of physical particles (neurons).   How does he know this?  He is a magus.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Ah, but Alan is omniscient.  He just knows that perception cannot be described in terms  of physical particles (neurons).   How does he know this?  He is a magus.

As he's fond of using terms like, "never", "impossible" etc it seems he must indeed be omniscient. Or rather he must believe himself to be omniscient at least.

To be fair, he tells us he knows something about computers. His big mistake though is just to jump from how computers work to thinking brains must also work the same way - he's apparently entirely oblivious to the phenomenon of complexity causing emergent properties. It's all personal incredulity again, but it's frustrating because it really wouldn't take much reading for him to see where he's gone wrong. 

[torridon]

Just to clarify another point about conscious perception.  There have been suggestions that conscious perception in the human brain is an emergent property of the information flow through the complex network of neurons, and one day it should be possible to replicate this using man made computers when they can achieve sufficient complexity.  This is simply not possible, because no matter how complex the physical network, it is still just processing information - not perceiving it.  People do not seem to recognise the profound difference between information processing and perception of information.  There is no physical definition for perception of information, because in order for it to be perceived, you need a perceiver - and it is simply not possible to define a conscious entity of perception with material particles.

So the soul, for you, is the perceiver, and most people think that way, granted.  I think we could view this as a shorthand way to understand our experience of being a person, and it is good enough for most people for most of the time. As an idea though it doesn't stand up to much serious scrutiny.  The soul is just some convenient magic black box, that people accept.  It is much harder to try to understand the sense of personhood in scientific terms; what the evidence suggests is that the phenomenological sense of being, is itself a product of the processes of consciousness.  Understanding how matter can perceive is a work in progress, but we do know that at various fundamental levels all matter is aware of all other matter; there are no pockets of isolation, and we have to think in terms of conscious persons as being a nexus of curated and focused awareness that is also reflexive ie it is also aware of its own awareness.  I agree this isn't easy, but hey, neither is quantum gravity, and the soul idea in the end really explains nothing. And if you don't trust the science, you can easily demonstrate that this thinking is on the right lines by this simple experiment - go to sleep.  You will find that this 'perceiver' does not exist any more.  This is consistent with the view from cognitive science that the self is not a thing, but a process, a feeling produced as part of the fabric of conscious experience.

[Alan Burns]

No, that is the question you keep answering in order to avoid the more important logical question: does the "conscious will of the human soul" produces its choices deterministically?

Yes of course it does, with a spiritual push of the button on the appropriate physical brain cell.

[Gordon]

Yes of course it does, with a spiritual push of the button on the appropriate physical brain cell.

Would this be in response to something pushing the appropriate button on/of/in the 'soul'?

[Stranger]

Yes of course it does, with a spiritual push of the button on the appropriate physical brain cell.

I'm suspecting you still don't get it: is the "spiritual push" generated deterministically? In other words, given a soul's complete history and its current situation, is any "decision" ("spiritual push") it makes inevitable?

If so, what's the fundamental difference from material cause and effect?

[Alan Burns]

Would this be in response to something pushing the appropriate button on/of/in the 'soul'?

The will to push originates in the spiritual soul, that it the whole essence of free will.  We have the God given freedom to choose, because God wants us to freely choose to accept Jesus as our saviour.

[Gordon]

The will to push originates in the spiritual soul, that it the whole essence of free will.  We have the God given freedom to choose, because God wants us to freely choose to accept Jesus as our saviour.

And here the walls come tumbling down for you, Alan - you have nothing to offer other than you personal incredulity (and associated fallacies).
 

[savillerow]

Msg 15845 AB This sort of writing drives me nuts.

[Enki]

What a convoluted house of cards you erect, Alan. Now you seem to be saying that there is a deterministic material body controlled by a deterministic spiritual soul controlled by a God who wants us to freely choose a certain path, even though we can only do so by a purely deterministic process.

The mind boggles!!

[SusanDoris]

Msg 15845 AB This sort of writing drives me nuts.

That was a laugh out loud one!! I absolutely agree!!

[torridon]

The will to push originates in the spiritual soul, that it the whole essence of free will.  We have the God given freedom to choose, because God wants us to freely choose to accept Jesus as our saviour.

I can't freely choose to believe there is a god any more than I can freely choose to believe that Tony Blair is still prime minister.

[Rhiannon]

Well that would be the stuff of nightmares, wouldn't it? But at least Tone was once PM and is still a living entity. I saw him on the tellybox with his mouth moving and noise coming out and everything.

If only Blair wanted to stay hidden so we had to find him. We could just forget...