Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why are we permitted to think like that though?

That's a null question. To be "permitted" you'd need to demonstrate first something to do the permitting - something you've never even bothered trying to do.

Why would consciousness be inevitable?

Who says that it is?

If it is emergent then it cannot be predicted by means of a lower organisational level surely.

What are you trying to say here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 
First, what do you think it is that's been reduced from

The sleepdriver is an unconscious mechanism performing intelligent acts.

An ordinary driver is something which is conscious and performing intelligent acts which
it is aware of.

Sorry Hillside you've been trounced better than Professor Trounce McTrounced who was trounced in the long distance trouncing event in the trounce Olympics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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

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. .

Yes I've said that. You cannot support the type of reductionism you propose and emergence though Hillside.
You cannot predict an emergent property from lower organisational levels.

[Alan Burns]

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.

Forget random.
Every key I press on this keyboard is done so because my conscious awareness wants me to do it.
I am free to press whichever key I want - this is free will.

If I am controlled by physical determinism, it is nature invoking these key presses, not me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The sleepdriver is an unconscious mechanism performing intelligent acts.

So now all you need to do is to explain the difference between "intelligent" and "conscious".

An ordinary driver is something which is conscious and performing intelligent acts which it is aware of.

But according to AB the issue is all about decision making and "free" will. He thinks that "just perceiving" is fine, but making decisions requires a "soul". Is the sleeping driver not making decisions about which route to take, is the sleeping chef not making decisions about which filing to have in his omelette? Just because different parts of the brain are involved does not mean that there aren't decisions being made in each case.   

Sorry Hillside you've been trounced better than Professor Trounce McTrounced who was trounced in the long distance trouncing event in the trounce Olympic

Oh dear. Having shot yourself in both feet here, by all means try again if you like.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So now all you need to do is to explain the difference between "intelligent" and "conscious".

Certainly

A sleepdriver can drive a car, make complex decisions etc and be totally unaware.
Conscious is being aware of all of it...

There was a great programme on Radio Four Yesterday You were conscious of some of it and the stuff you missed was you listening merely intelligently Ha Ha.

[Nearly Sane]

Forget random.
Every key I press on this keyboard is done so because my conscious awareness wants me to do it.
I am free to press whichever key I want - this is free will.

If I am controlled by physical determinism, it is nature invoking these key presses, not me.

And again that addition of physical adds nothing. How does a 'free' decision get made if it is neither determinist, random or a combination of both? Note you didn't even attempt an answer above, and that is the pattern when you have been asked on this many many many tines on this thread. If you post something again that just ignores the question then it will just confirm that you either don't understand  the issue, or are deliberately and dishonestly avoiding it.

[ippy]

Reading the posts here it looks like A B's on the run and Vlad; well Vlad, can anyone remember the 'Monty Python's' the false Hungarian phrase book sketch?

Well it looks to me as though Vlad has got hold of a copy of a false thesaurus, maybe not a Hungarian one? 

When I was a lot younger we had a neighbour that tripped up on the turn up of his own trousers and broke his leg in three places, shouldn't laugh but he was accident prone and had a motor cycle accident later in the same year and lost the tip of his penis, it makes my eyes water thinking about it and it wasn't me that lost that bit. 

Sorry about the above it looks as though I've drifted, not really, I was just thinking about losers and this random memory came to mind, it must have been from at least fifty years back or so. 

Just thought I'd share this with you all, ippy

[Alan Burns]

And again that addition of physical adds nothing. How does a 'free' decision get made if it is neither determinist, random or a combination of both? Note you didn't even attempt an answer above, and that is the pattern when you have been asked on this many many many tines on this thread. If you post something again that just ignores the question then it will just confirm that you either don't understand  the issue, or are deliberately and dishonestly avoiding it.

You seem to be confused by thinking entirely in physical deterministic terms.
Scenario1:
Physical determinism is ultimately rooted in the very start of time, and since then every event has been a physical consequence of a previous event - hence no control or manipulation, just reaction to previous physical events.

Scenario 2:
But I now invoke the possibility of spiritual interaction within these chains of cause and effect in order to bring about desired results instead of inevitable consequences.  A desired result requires conscious awareness of what is being desired in order to set about performing the necessary interactions to create the desired result.  And this scenario requires the freedom to perform these interactions - this is my definition of free will.

Scenario 1 is the materialist view, which does not fit with the reality I perceive.
Scenario 2 describes what humans do every day, but it requires spiritual interaction in order to bring about desired results.

[torridon]

But I now invoke the possibility of spiritual interaction within these chains of cause and effect in order to bring about desired results instead of inevitable consequences.  A desired result requires conscious awareness of what is being desired in order to set about performing the necessary interactions to create the desired result.  And this scenario requires the freedom to perform these interactions - this is my definition of free will.

You still haven't grasped the fact that adding 'spiritual' makes no additional sense, given that 'spiritual' lacks any real definition.  All this is is a ruse to locate to locus of desire and intention into some other realm for which there is no evidence thereby hoping to avoid facing up to the implications of real life.

 I don't think you have explained how a human's desires can be located in some special spiritual realm but the desires of all other creatures work just fine in the real world.

I don't think you have explained how putting our desires into a spiritual realm somehow renders them free of all prior influence; my experience of reality is that desires always relate to something prior; if I want to sleep, there is a reason, it is because I am tired.  There is always a because; if there was no reason then your desire is random.

With regard to 'a desired result', what is the origin of this desire ?  I don't think you have explained how you can want something that you don't want.  When you are ready, the floor is yours, we are all ears.

[Alan Burns]

You still haven't grasped the fact that adding 'spiritual' makes no additional sense, given that 'spiritual' lacks any real definition.  All this is is a ruse to locate to locus of desire and intention into some other realm for which there is no evidence thereby hoping to avoid facing up to the implications of real life.

 I don't think you have explained how a human's desires can be located in some special spiritual realm but the desires of all other creatures work just fine in the real world.

I don't think you have explained how putting our desires into a spiritual realm somehow renders them free of all prior influence; my experience of reality is that desires always relate to something prior; if I want to sleep, there is a reason, it is because I am tired.  There is always a because; if there was no reason then your desire is random.

With regard to 'a desired result', what is the origin of this desire ?  I don't think you have explained how you can want something that you don't want.  When you are ready, the floor is yours, we are all ears.

A conscious desire is certainly derived from prior knowledge and experiences, but it is not entirely defined by them.  We have many different choices from which to form a particular desire - and we can choose how much of that desire we wish to fulfil, or we may have choices about how the desire can be fulfilled.  And we can even choose to ignore the desire and choose not to implement it if we so wish.  You may try to argue that all these choices are somehow pre determined, as are the actions needed to fulfil the desire, making us into biological robots with our conscious awareness just spectating upon the pre destined events taking place.  But in forming such an argument, you are actually using your free will to implement your conscious desire to contradict my argument.

And by "spiritual" I mean something which is not entirely pre determined by physical events but invoked by the power of conscious free will of the human soul.

And I would argue that other animals appear to be driven by instinct and learnt experience rather than conscious desires.

[ekim]

A conscious desire is certainly derived from prior knowledge and experiences, but it is not entirely defined by them.  We have many different choices from which to form a particular desire - and we can choose how much of that desire we wish to fulfil, or we may have choices about how the desire can be fulfilled.  And we can even choose to ignore the desire and choose not to implement it if we so wish. 

To relate it to the topic, perhaps you could illustrate what you mean by using the desire to find God as an example.

[wigginhall]

AB makes pretty circles.  Spiritual stuff is invoked by the conscious free will of the human soul.  And how do we know about this?  Err, your free will enables you to make spiritual (non-physical) connections.   Just like that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Certainly

A sleepdriver can drive a car, make complex decisions etc and be totally unaware.
Conscious is being aware of all of it...

First, clearly the driver is aware at some level - if he wasn't he'd crash the car.

Second though, for the purpose of AB's speculation "intelligent" vs "aware" is a difference without significance. His schtick is that there are two states: "passive observer" and "conscious awareness". He thinks that non-human species and laptop computers alike are the former, whereas uniquely humans are the latter. In order to be the latter though, he also thinks there has to be something called a "soul" to make it so.

It's deeply ignorant and barmier than a box of frogs I know, but so far as I can tell he wouldn't call his laptop "intelligent" ether - just "passive". If he accepts though that the subconscious is capable of making decisions too, then he'll either have to find another soul to do it, or refine his model so the first soul clocks on for a bit even when conscious decision-making isn't happening.

There was a great programme on Radio Four Yesterday You were conscious of some of it and the stuff you missed was you listening merely intelligently Ha Ha.

Oh dear. Try again...

...on second thoughts.

[torridon]

And by "spiritual" I mean something which is not entirely pre determined by physical events but invoked by the power of conscious free will of the human soul.

That is still not saying what it is.  That is skirting around the issue.  You claim that consciousness cannot be defined in material terms, but happily run with 'soul' or 'spiritual' which have zero definition.  We can measure consciousness with machines now, with a considerable degree of precision.  Souls, however, we cannot even detect them, never mind measure them.

[torridon]

And I would argue that other animals appear to be driven by instinct and learnt experience rather than conscious desires.

When a hungry wolf is chasing down a bison, it is acting on its conscious desire for food. 

Also, most learning involves consciousness anyway. A  baby brown bear learns to catch salmon in the river by watching its mother do it.  Can't do that when you are asleep.

[Gordon]

A conscious desire is certainly derived from prior knowledge and experiences, but it is not entirely defined by them.  We have many different choices from which to form a particular desire - and we can choose how much of that desire we wish to fulfil, or we may have choices about how the desire can be fulfilled.  And we can even choose to ignore the desire and choose not to implement it if we so wish.  You may try to argue that all these choices are somehow pre determined, as are the actions needed to fulfil the desire, making us into biological robots with our conscious awareness just spectating upon the pre destined events taking place.  But in forming such an argument, you are actually using your free will to implement your conscious desire to contradict my argument.

And by "spiritual" I mean something which is not entirely pre determined by physical events but invoked by the power of conscious free will of the human soul.

And I would argue that other animals appear to be driven by instinct and learnt experience rather than conscious desires.

This is just nonsense, Alan.

All you are doing is creating a narrative so as to give you a warm cosy feeling that your faith is based on some kind of structured rationality  but, unfortunately for you, the rationality element is missing having been replaced by your floundering around in fallacies - in that sense you are occupying a similar niche to YEC creationists where you (and they) are utterly overwhelmed by the spurious conviction that they have accessed some special knowledge that trumps everything and everyone else.

Does it not worry you that the most of your fellow Christians, as far as I can see anyway, aren't as preoccupied as you by 'souls', 'free will', 'spiritual interaction' and 'conscious awareness' etc? 

[Alan Burns]

Vlad,

First, clearly the driver is aware at some level - if he wasn't he'd crash the car.

Second though, for the purpose of AB's speculation "intelligent" vs "aware" is a difference without significance. His schtick is that there are two states: "passive observer" and "conscious awareness". He thinks that non-human species and laptop computers alike are the former, whereas uniquely humans are the latter. In order to be the latter though, he also thinks there has to be something called a "soul" to make it so.

It's deeply ignorant and barmier than a box of frogs I know, but so far as I can tell he wouldn't call his laptop "intelligent" ether - just "passive". If he accepts though that the subconscious is capable of making decisions too, then he'll either have to find another soul to do it, or refine his model so the first soul clocks on for a bit even when conscious decision-making isn't happening.

I am not denying that computers have artificial intelligence.  The difference in a computer is that all apparent decisions are pre defined by the data and programmed logic.  In a human, there is still data and programmed logic, but in addition there is conscious awareness which, if it wills, can override or modify any decision formed by the data and built in logic.  A sleepwalker or sleepdriver are examples of humans just running on their perceived data and built in logic without the manual override.  People under hypnosis may also have their conscious awareness turned off while they perform tasks induced from the input of their physical senses (sight and hearing).

[Alan Burns]

This is just nonsense, Alan.

All you are doing is creating a narrative so as to give you a warm cosy feeling that your faith is based on some kind of structured rationality  but, unfortunately for you, the rationality element is missing having been replaced by your floundering around in fallacies - in that sense you are occupying a similar niche to YEC creationists where you (and they) are utterly overwhelmed by the spurious conviction that they have accessed some special knowledge that trumps everything and everyone else.

Does it not worry you that the most of your fellow Christians, as far as I can see anyway, aren't as preoccupied as you by 'souls', 'free will', 'spiritual interaction' and 'conscious awareness' etc?

I do not know who you are referring to as most of my fellow Christians.  The concept of the soul and free will are absolutely central to Christian beliefs.  The essence of Christian faith is the soul which will be held to account for all its free will actions when the body dies.  My ideas about conscious awareness and spiritual interaction are just confirming how the soul can implement its gift of free will through the human body.  And the single most important action in any human life is to use their gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus as their saviour, because He died to save us from sin and death.

[floo]

When a hungry wolf is chasing down a bison, it is acting on its conscious desire for food. 

Also, most learning involves consciousness anyway. A  baby brown bear learns to catch salmon in the river by watching its mother do it.  Can't do that when you are asleep.

Of cause other species of animals have consciousness, some are quite intelligent too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not denying that computers have artificial intelligence.  The difference in a computer is that all apparent decisions are pre defined by the data and programmed logic.

If by "computers" you actually mean software, then the architecture of decision making may be "pre-defined" but the outcomes themselves are not. The SIMS game for example is a good example of emergence - the virtual cities etc that are created cannot have been envisaged or planned by the people who programmed the game. 

In a human, there is still data and programmed logic, but in addition there is conscious awareness which, if it wills, can override or modify any decision formed by the data and built in logic.

"Conscious" and "subconscious" are just different ways of layering our thinking processes. Broadly different parts of the brain "light up" in MRI scanners when each is in play (cerebral cortex and medulla oblangata respectively for example), but even then it's not necessarily the case that parts of the brain can be isolated for each function in this way. The point though is that there's no reason to think that each isn't deterministic in character even though they "feel" different when we experience them. 

A sleepwalker or sleepdriver are examples of humans just running on their perceived data and built in logic without the manual override.

No. How does the sleeping driver decide where to go, avoid novel traffic situations, choose whether or not to slow down to let the little old lady across the road? These are all decisions - albeit decisions made outside of conscious data processing.

People under hypnosis may also have their conscious awareness turned off while they perform tasks induced from the input of their physical senses (sight and hearing).

And they still make decisions when in that state. How do you think that any of this is helping your case?

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to be confused by thinking entirely in physical deterministic terms.
Scenario1:
Physical determinism is ultimately rooted in the very start of time, and since then every event has been a physical consequence of a previous event - hence no control or manipulation, just reaction to previous physical events.

Scenario 2:
But I now invoke the possibility of spiritual interaction within these chains of cause and effect in order to bring about desired results instead of inevitable consequences.  A desired result requires conscious awareness of what is being desired in order to set about performing the necessary interactions to create the desired result.  And this scenario requires the freedom to perform these interactions - this is my definition of free will.

Scenario 1 is the materialist view, which does not fit with the reality I perceive.
Scenario 2 describes what humans do every day, but it requires spiritual interaction in order to bring about desired results.

You know Alan, it would be nice if you actually read what people wrote in order to avoid misrepresenting them as you do here. I think it's just common courtesy but you just rush at things and reply to what you are expecting. It makes discussion difficult because it's going to take me time to correct this farrago from you, and all because you appear not to have the decency to read posts properly.

I'm not thinking in any sense of physical determinism. Let's remember that not only did you introduce the term physical, but I've pointed out 3 or 4 times in this discussion that it is irrelevant. Further you have presented it as if I am arguing that determinism must be true. Again this is not what I have said, rather I have been asking how you get a 'free' decision in a defined logically coherent manner. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof by creating a strawman of my position might be seen as duplicitous but it would appear to again simply arise from your inability to understand what is being said because you do not take the needed time to read it. I appreciate that you are passionate about this, but your passion is leading to a disregard of trying to understand what is actually being said.


Leaving aside your continued inability to give any logically coherent definition of 'spiritual' as you use it, the question is how do you get to a 'free' decision that is neither in some form determined and/or random. What you have stated above is that this 'spiritual' interaction 'requires the freedom to perform these interactions - this is my definition of free will.' Surely you can see this isn't even a definition never mind a logically coherent one. It simplysays a free decision will be free which even with a definition of how such a decision could be made, which is the thing you haven't provided, is entirely circular. Given the lack of definition this doesn't even amount to the 'heights' of a Maysian 'Brexit means Brexit'.


So, before you rush in to writing a reply Alan, I implore you for the sake of sensible discourse, and to show that you actually read things properly rather than what appears to be the the repeated circularity of a badly programmed not, make an effort to understand the question. To help, try and describe how a 'free' choice is made. What are the factors that allow that choice to be free from either previous causes or random choices? How does a choice get chosen if it is free?

[Gordon]

I do not know who you are referring to as most of my fellow Christians.  The concept of the soul and free will are absolutely central to Christian beliefs.  The essence of Christian faith is the soul which will be held to account for all its free will actions when the body dies.  My ideas about conscious awareness and spiritual interaction are just confirming how the soul can implement its gift of free will through the human body.  And the single most important action in any human life is to use their gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus as their saviour, because He died to save us from sin and death.

I'm just pointing out that while the 'soul' is seemingly routine in Christian belief your particular takes on how this 'soul' allegedly operates does seem somewhat bespoke. I don't recall other Christians ploughing exactly the same furrow as you: then again your own personal incredulity is exactly that - personal.

If you think the 'most important action in any human life' involves Jesus then I'd disagree - for me my family, friends and trying to behave like a decent human being are more important than subscribing to religious superstitions involving long dead middle-eastern Jewish characters as portrayed in ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance.   

[Sebastian Toe]

The essence of Christian faith is the soul which will be held to account for all its free will actions when the body dies. 

How do you think that will happen though?
Will your soul be asked to explain why you did something at a certain time in the past for example?

[floo]

I agree with Gordon that trying to behave like a decent human being is much more important than what faith you espouse. Having a faith doesn't ensure you are a good person. Those who hold extreme theist views can be very unpleasant and abusive.