Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

And that is an insight we learn from. An ant colony displays intelligence and yet no ant is intelligent. So where does intelligence reside and what is it ? Understanding intelligence in an ant colony helps us to understand the nature of human intelligence. Ants in a colony have roles and they change roles to meet the changing needs of the colony, but there is no-one directing which ants to change behaviour.  There is always a queen ant but she does not control the colony, and this is the key lesson to learn : if the intelligence of the colony was in the brain of the queen ant, then the queen ant would need an ant colony in her head also.  This is why the idea of master neurons is wrong, and also, why the idea of a soul is wrong. We have to understand intelligence as a phenomenon of emergence within a system; all else merely leads to the nonsense of an infinite regress.

Whatever control you imagine to be present in the ant colony, it is not conscious control, because there is no conscious entity within the collective elements of the ant hill.  The only controlling element would have to be the evolutionary process which would be capable of selecting advantageous ant behaviour to facilitate the functionality of the ant hill.

But human behaviour is vastly different because of the presence of conscious awareness which can implement real time intelligently driven control.  I know you have presented evidence of specific brain activity occurring prior to conscious awareness of a choice being made, but this does remove the controlling power of our conscious awareness.  If I were to say to you "Hop up and down on one leg", your conscious awareness would understand the meaning of the request, and then make a conscious choice as to whether or not to obey the request.  You would not automatically obey it, neither would you automatically ignore it.  You would consciously decide whether or not you want to obey the request, then implement that decision by consciously obeying, or consciously ignoring, or consciously telling me to get lost.  This is the demonstrable power of consciously driven human free will.

[Nearly Sane]

Alan, why are you continuing to write making assertions of free will when you haven't and indeed would appear cannot give a logically coherent definition of free here? All your posts until you do that are meaningless.

[floo]

I suspect when the creature, which would develop into the human species first climbed out of the primeval swamp, their level of conscious perception was nothing like it is now.

[torridon]

Whatever control you imagine to be present in the ant colony, it is not conscious control, because there is no conscious entity within the collective elements of the ant hill.  The only controlling element would have to be the evolutionary process which would be capable of selecting advantageous ant behaviour to facilitate the functionality of the ant hill.

Nobody suggests that an ant colony anywhere near approaches the complexity of a brain.  But to understand complex things we often look to simpler models in nature for clues to understanding and insect colonies and swarms provide insight into how things like intelligence can emerge in the functioning of a complex system.  How can a collective of millions of individual creatures have a composite collective intelligence ? If we can understand that then we inch a little closer to understanding the emergence of intelligence in brains.

[torridon]

But human behaviour is vastly different because of the presence of conscious awareness which can implement real time intelligently driven control.  I know you have presented evidence of specific brain activity occurring prior to conscious awareness of a choice being made, but this does remove the controlling power of our conscious awareness.  If I were to say to you "Hop up and down on one leg", your conscious awareness would understand the meaning of the request, and then make a conscious choice as to whether or not to obey the request.  You would not automatically obey it, neither would you automatically ignore it.  You would consciously decide whether or not you want to obey the request, then implement that decision by consciously obeying, or consciously ignoring, or consciously telling me to get lost.  This is the demonstrable power of consciously driven human free will.

What makes you think your wants are free ? We can try to get what we want but we do not choose what to want in the first place. Try wanting something that you do not want. That is just as much nonsense as claiming you can think a thought before you thought it, or make a choice on a basis that is free of any basis.

[wigginhall]

Well, at least AB's exposition of free will is showing the utter inanity of it in all its stonking Technicolor glory! 

The comments on ants and master neurons made me think about AB's idea of the soul, which seems to have the ability to connect with the body, to make free will decisions, to want stuff, and so on.   So this soul is fairly intelligent and highly motivated, yet isn't part of the universe.   How does that work?   Ah, magic - to quote Leann Rimes, "there's a magical feeling, so it's gonna steal your heart tonight".   

[bluehillside Retd.]

There was a good episode of "The Digital Human" on Radio 4 yesterday re the subconscious. Well worth a listen for anyone interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08n2gj8

It blows some of AB's thinking out of the water - maybe they should have called to to explain why the contributors from independent fields of research have it wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There was a good episode of "The Digital Human" on Radio 4 yesterday re the subconscious. Well worth a listen for anyone interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08n2gj8

It blows some of AB's thinking out of the water - maybe they should have called to to explain why the contributors from independent fields of research have it wrong?

Yes I heard that too.
It rather supported the idea of the P Zombie and the Zombie suggested by Dennett and yet that undoes Dennett by distinguishing between that mechanism and consciousness.

The programme did piss on bonfires but not the one's you wanted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes I heard that too.
It rather supported the idea of the P Zombie and the Zombie suggested by Dennett and yet that undoes Dennett by distinguishing between that mechanism and consciousness.

The programme did piss on bonfires but not the one's you wanted.

Wrong again. AB asserts into being a little man at the controls he calls "soul" who apparently does our decision making for us (but not that of, say, chimpanzees), is somehow neither determined nor random in his actions, whose means of interacting with our physical selves he cannot "fully explain", and who clocks off for a bit when we sleep. What the programme tells us is that sometimes we are fast asleep yet at the same time can carry out complex tasks like driving a car.

Presumably AB will now come up with an even more convoluted and contradictory set of claims to explain that.   

[Alan Burns]

Alan, why are you continuing to write making assertions of free will when you haven't and indeed would appear cannot give a logically coherent definition of free here? All your posts until you do that are meaningless.

The concept of human free will is simply that it is not constrained by physical determinism but invoked by the conscious awareness of the human soul.

[Nearly Sane]

The concept of human free will is simply that it is not constrained by physical determinism but invoked by the conscious awareness of the human soul.

Yes but that still makes no logical sense. You added in the word physical to determinism here as if it makes any difference. It doesn't. (Note you have a habit of doing this, it makes you look as if you are being dishonest or have no clue about the issue). You gave no description of what a free decision means. Again until you do this, your assertions are logically incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. AB asserts into being a little man at the controls he calls "soul" who apparently does our decision making for us (but not that of, say, chimpanzees), is somehow neither determined nor random in his actions, whose means of interacting with our physical selves he cannot "fully explain", and who clocks off for a bit when we sleep. What the programme tells us is that sometimes we are fast asleep yet at the same time can carry out complex tasks like driving a car.

Presumably AB will now come up with an even more convoluted and contradictory set of claims to explain that.   

But consciousness is not the same as the mechanism which acts like a person but has no awareness of what it is doing vis The sleepdriver, the sleep chef, and to a certain extent even the blindsighted lady. Something is clearly clocking off during this episode.
It is unfair for reductionist materialism to expect an answer when it has problems itself with consciousness.

Given then that sophisticated human activities can be demonstrably performed by a so called P zombie mechanism. Dennett et al now have to explain consciousness since what they describe is already demonstrated in the sleepdriver.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The concept of human free will is simply that it is not constrained by physical determinism but invoked by the conscious awareness of the human soul.

No doubt. And my concept of leprechauns is that they leave pots of gold at the ends or rainbows. Trouble is though, neither of us have logic, evidence, definitions, or anything at all in fact to enable enable anyone else to distinguish our claims from pointless white noise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But consciousness is not the same as the mechanism which acts like a person but has no awareness of what it is doing vis The sleepdriver, the sleep chef, and to a certain extent even the blindsighted lady. Something is clearly clocking off during this episode.

"The mechanism that acts like a person" eh? Driving and cooking an omelette alike require decisions to be made. According to AB, that's the job of the "soul". According to him too, this soul clocks off for a bit when we sleep.

It is unfair for reductionist materialist to expect an answer when it has problems itself with consciousness.

Yet again, to be "reductionist" you need to demonstrate that there's something that's been reduced from - something you've never even attempted, let alone managed to do.

Given then that sophisticated human activities can be demonstrably performed by a so called P zombie mechanism. Dennett et al now have to explain consciousness since what they describe is already demonstrated in the sleepdriver.

No they don't. The subconscious is capable of making decisions without "us" – ie, the higher cognitive functions – being aware of it. In fact, for the most part our subconscious is doing most of the heavy lifting only we're just not aware of it. Perhaps AB thinks there's another "soul" doing the decision making for the subconscious too?

[Alan Burns]

Nobody suggests that an ant colony anywhere near approaches the complexity of a brain.  But to understand complex things we often look to simpler models in nature for clues to understanding and insect colonies and swarms provide insight into how things like intelligence can emerge in the functioning of a complex system.  How can a collective of millions of individual creatures have a composite collective intelligence ? If we can understand that then we inch a little closer to understanding the emergence of intelligence in brains.

So we need to beware of giant ant hills becoming self aware and taking over the world!
You seem to be delving into the realms of extreme science fiction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"The mechanism that acts like a person" eh? Driving and cooking an omelette alike require decisions to be made. According to AB, that's the job of the "soul". According to him too, this soul clocks off for a bit when we sleep.

Yet again, to be "reductionist" you need to demonstrate that there's something that's been reduced from - something you've never even attempted, let alone managed to do.

No they don't. The subconscious is capable of making decisions without "us" – ie, the higher cognitive functions – being aware of it. In fact, for the most part our subconscious is doing most of the heavy lifting only we're just not aware of it. Perhaps AB thinks there's another "soul" doing the decision making for the subconscious too?

You've misunderstood. The process of intelligence is obviously different from that of consciousness. Dennett has only done half a job.

....And if you feel he has got it then it is you that thinks there's another person inside!

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Which just tells you that there are events we cannot currently explain in naturalistic terms. How would you propose to build a logical path from "don't know" to "miracle"?

Perhaps when the spontaneous cure just happens to coincide with a prayer.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps when the spontaneous cure just happens to coincide with a prayer.

and when they don't you illogically ignore these. And when prayer happens and there is no cure you ignore these. Therefore you have a cherry pucking approach to start with and further it still doesn't actually show any supernatural cause and follows a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You are showing no understanding of the issues you have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So we need to beware of giant ant hills becoming self aware and taking over the world!
You seem to be delving into the realms of extreme science fiction.

I think you've caught the nub of the oppositions argument here.
The trouble is that the consciousness as described by the reductionists describes only what sophisticated unconscious sleepwalkers are capable of and that isn't consciousness. Unless they impute a separate consciousness.

It's a reductionist half job.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So we need to beware of giant ant hills becoming self aware and taking over the world!
You seem to be delving into the realms of extreme science fiction.

Conceptually at least, yes - in practice though no ant colony could have the massive numbers and complexity of interactions to approach the level of consciousness that humans and other species have. You can though think of the emergent properties of ant colonies as very very crude versions of a sort of proto consciousness. Your mistake here by the way is a very common one - underestimating very big numbers and their effect.   

[Alan Burns]

Yes but that still makes no logical sense. You added in the word physical to determinism here as if it makes any difference. It doesn't. (Note you have a habit of doing this, it makes you look as if you are being dishonest or have no clue about the issue). You gave no description of what a free decision means. Again until you do this, your assertions are logically incoherent.

I specified physical determinism because there is no possible outside control over physically determined events - they are caused by prior physical events.

For control and manipulation to be possible, physical events in the brain need to be invoked by whatever is the source of the control or manipulation - the conscious self.  A free will event is simply free from physical determination, and invoked instead by the spiritual will of the human soul.  Without this we are just nature's robots.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Perhaps when the spontaneous cure just happens to coincide with a prayer.

And that's yet another of the various logical fallacies on which you rely - the post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you wanted to show a causal link between prayer and someone unexpectedly getting better you'd need an awful lot more than the fact of one following the other.

[Nearly Sane]

I specified physical determinism because there is no possible outside control over physically determined events - they are caused by prior physical events.

For control and manipulation to be possible, physical events in the brain need to be invoked by whatever is the source of the control or manipulation - the conscious self.  A free will event is simply free from physical determination, and invoked instead by the spiritual will of the human soul.  Without this we are just nature's robots.

Again you are showing a complete lack of understanding of the issue. Adding in 'physical' gives you nothing and us irrelevant. The challenge which you continue either to avoid or have no understanding of is his any decision that is 'free' is made. If there is 'will', and again the additiion of the word 'spiritual' not only adds nothing but in fact makes your statement doubly meaningless, since you haven't been able to define that either, then there has to be something either determined or random about that decision. Until you define some way it isn't, and remember you have been asked for this many many many times here,you are making no sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Conceptually at least, yes - in practice though no ant colony could have the massive numbers and complexity of interactions to approach the level of consciousness that humans and other species have. You can though think of the emergent properties of ant colonies as very very crude versions of a sort of proto consciousness.

Why are we permitted to think like that though?
Why would consciousness be inevitable? If it is emergent then it cannot be predicted by means of a lower organisational level surely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you've caught the nub of the oppositions argument here.

No he hasn't. He misunderstands the problems he's given himself fundamentally. As indeed do you.

The trouble is that the consciousness as described by the reductionists describes only what sophisticated unconscious sleepwalkers are capable of and that isn't consciousness. Unless they impute a separate consciousness.

First, what do you think it is that's been reduced from and how would you propose to demonstrate it?

Second, it describes no such thing. Various areas of research all point to consciousness as an emergent property. That's the prevailing model, because it's the one that most closely fits the available data. If you think it to be wrong, then you need to come up with some falsifications better than, "but I like the idea of soul because it suits my religious beliefs".

It's a reductionist half job.

Five words, two mistakes. Good effort.