Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And nobody suggested that they were. You suggested that (some?) new things sprang unbidden with no prior causation, whilst I argued that 'new' things were unexpected combinations of prior phenomena. I've demonstrated an example of mine, and we're still waiting on your example.

O.

I don't think i'm denying cause and effect.
To recap what I am after is the place of intelligence in a deterministic universe.

[Outrider]

I don't think i'm denying cause and effect. To recap what I am after is the place of intelligence in a deterministic universe.

And, to reiterate, intelligence is an example of animal behaviour, which is apparently deterministic.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think i'm denying cause and effect.

Then you're not "denying" determinism either.
 

To recap what I am after is the place of intelligence in a deterministic universe.

That's not a "recap", it's a shifting of ground - and the "place of intelligence in a deterministic universe" has nothing to do with "novelty".   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And, to reiterate, intelligence is an example of animal behaviour, which is apparently deterministic.

O.

I think what I am after is the working out. If causation is the key determinant of determination here then id like to see chains and processes of causation particularly at times of emergence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think what I am after is the working out. If causation is the key determinant of determination here then id like to see chains and processes of causation particularly at times of emergence.

No doubt you would, but even if that could be unscrambled into a coherent thought your personal incredulity about cause and effect would still have absolutely sweet FA to do with your opening gambit of"novelty" being problematic for determinism.

Since you ask though, here's a link to how slime mold solves a maze - essentially with pheromone trails of varying intensity depending on the quality of the food source. Other emergent properties (like neighbourhoods of Chinese restaurants for example) use different means but the basic principle is the same - a few simple rules consistently applied leads to outcomes in which the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" as the saying goes:

http://thinkorthwim.com/2007/05/01/slime-mold-the-plant-that-can-solve-a-maze/

[Alan Burns]

Alan Burns

I want to see an answer to Shaker's post #22,786

I just know that my own existence could not be possible without the Creator's power.
The existence of other creations with (in human terms) "defects" does not in any way alter this inevitable conclusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I just know that my own existence could not be possible without the Creator's power.

You don't "know" that at all - you just believe it to be true as an article of personal faith. Knowledge requires evidence.

The existence of other creations with (in human terms) "defects" does not in any way alter this inevitable conclusion.

It's only "inevitable" if you allow for having neither evidence nor logic to support you.

[Shaker]

I just know that my own existence could not be possible without the Creator's power.

No you don't.

Once more, this is your belief, not knowledge.

Sorry Susan; you're not going to get your answer. Not that I expected one in any case (probably any more than you did, realistically).

ETA: cross-posted with bluey.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No doubt you would, but even if that could be unscrambled into a coherent thought your personal incredulity about cause and effect would still have absolutely sweet FA to do with your opening gambit of"novelty" being problematic for determinism.

Since you ask though, here's a link to how slime mold solves a maze - essentially with pheromone trails of varying intensity depending on the quality of the food source. Other emergent properties (like neighbourhoods of Chinese restaurants for example) use different means but the basic principle is the same - a few simple rules consistently applied leads to outcomes in which the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" as the saying goes:

http://thinkorthwim.com/2007/05/01/slime-mold-the-plant-that-can-solve-a-maze/

Yet again we are have arrived courtesy of Hillside philosophical taxis at the Done Deal by which I mean a knotty philosophical issue which is being debated but somehow in antitheist forum land is settled............................ Moral irrealism. consciousness, origin of the universe, naturalism, emergence and now determinism. If that is so then we are entitled to the causal chain of say wetness, at least there, a group of water molecules gives rise to a novel property....what emergent property a group of Chinese restaurants produces is anyone's guess. We need from you an example of an emergent property with NO CONCEPTUAL LEAP in the chain of causation. A seamless connection without any turdpolish or 'Bob's your uncle' ingredient.

I have not even seen mention of the different types of determinism here and no mention of the indetermined in chaos and quantum mechanics.

So, until we see those particular chains of causation we are correct to be suspicious of any infilling as dogmatic scientism. I also am suspicious here of explaining novelty away which is something I think your attempts to explain emergence try to achieve.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And, to reiterate, intelligence is an example of animal behaviour, which is apparently deterministic.

O.

I get defining intelligence as analysis of a situation but how would that type of intelligence handle novelty?

[Outrider]

I think what I am after is the working out. If causation is the key determinant of determination here then id like to see chains and processes of causation particularly at times of emergence.

Except that I arrive at determinism from deduction - there isn't anything else. There is definitively cause and effect, but that's not intrinsically all there is. However, as yet no-one's proffered anything reliable as a supplement, and until they do I'll operate on the understanding that it's 'just' cause and effect. Complex networks of cause and effect, perhaps, but a deterministic network nonetheless.

I don't necessarily know all the individual causes and effects, partly because of the immense complexity of the systems, but if you want to presume something else is involved then you need to support the case for that something else.

O.

[Outrider]

I just know that my own existence could not be possible without the Creator's power.

No, you don't 'know' that, you believe that.

The existence of other creations with (in human terms) "defects" does not in any way alter this inevitable conclusion.

That's not a conclusion, it's an assumption. You've started with that presumption, not ended with that conclusion from the evidence.

O.

[Outrider]

I get defining intelligence as analysis of a situation but how would that type of intelligence handle novelty?

It would look at prior phenomena, and from assessments of how those patterns were dealt with, derive new patterns. From their successes and failures, new patterns of response would be refined. Like intelligence handles pretty much everything, I guess.

O.

[ippy]

I just know that my own existence could not be possible without the Creator's power.
The existence of other creations with (in human terms) "defects" does not in any way alter this inevitable conclusion.

Is it possible Richard Dawkins was trying to be polite when he was refering to his book 'The God Delusion', maybe he held back from using a far more appropriate word like 'fantasy'?

ippy.

[SusanDoris]

Bluehillside, Shaker, Outrider and Ippy

AB's post was as usual woolly, and reading what he says - which I usually do only from responses! - is like wading through treacle, or candyfloss.

RD's American publisher thought RD's idea of a title - which I cannot remember - was too forceful or something and came up with the one we knkow.

[torridon]

Just a few comments on your choice of wording:

all I am doing is expressing my preference
What precisely is it that does the expressing?

I merely try to identify it act upon it
What is it that does the trying?

we identify which of the multitude of competing urges is the strongest
What is it that can identify?

 These things we discover, not choose
What does the discovering?

And in answering these comments - bear in mind that you said "conscious" is irrelevant.

Ha, so you think a quick hop skip and jump diverting the focus to souls will get you out of a deterministic knot ? whatever the mechanism of choice, it still is subject to the principle that an action is either derived or it isn't, in which case it is random.  That which is derived is not free, it is a consequence.

For all practical purpose we can assume that reality is deterministic; this allows for predicability, for meaning. The chaos of a random world would be unintelligible.  The way that light is diffracted through a lens is determined by the properties of the lens. For a thought experiment, suppose I go up to some random bloke in the street and call his mother a whore.  After I pick myself up I regret not having realised this this bloke, he believes I was asking for it, if he doesn't sort me out, I might go and do the same to someone else. Probably a conservative to boot. So I choose my next victim with more care, a hare krishna devotee coming singing down the street chanting the name of god.  I insult his mother, but his mind is calmed by his practice, and he holds the Ghandian principle of non-violence so dear, that he manages to suppress his urge to take a swing at me.  We might say, he has demonstrated his free will; or perhaps free won't, and this is a characteristic of, but not unique to, humans.  But both reactions are understandable, both are compatible with determinism. Each brain is unique, each brain has had a unique formative journey through life, each brain ends up with a unique system of values and hence, like lenses processing the light differently, each brain processes action and reaction uniquely producing different signature outcomes.  Adding a layer of 'soul' stuff on top of the mechanisms of choice adds nothing of any explanatory value.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yet again we are have arrived courtesy of Hillside philosophical taxis at the Done Deal by which I mean a knotty philosophical issue which is being debated but somehow in antitheist forum land is settled............................ Moral irrealism. consciousness, origin of the universe, naturalism, emergence and now determinism. If that is so then we are entitled to the causal chain of say wetness, at least there, a group of water molecules gives rise to a novel property....what emergent property a group of Chinese restaurants produces is anyone's guess. We need from you an example of an emergent property with NO CONCEPTUAL LEAP in the chain of causation. A seamless connection without any turdpolish or 'Bob's your uncle' ingredient.

I have not even seen mention of the different types of determinism here and no mention of the indetermined in chaos and quantum mechanics.

So, until we see those particular chains of causation we are correct to be suspicious of any infilling as dogmatic scientism. I also am suspicious here of explaining novelty away which is something I think your attempts to explain emergence try to achieve.

Standard Vladism. You asserted there to be a “problem of novelty” for determinism and the claim was falsified. Rather then engage with that, in response you've thrown together a word salad of every barely-understood term you could think of in the hope that you could make your escape under cover of the cloud of irrelevance you've thrown up.

Doesn’t wash. Deal with the issue or don’t. It’s up to you.

PS And if you struggle with the relevance of the emergence of neighbourhoods of Chinese restaurants then you really don’t have the grip on emergence as a phenomenon you claim to have.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

PS And if you struggle with the relevance of the emergence of neighbourhoods of Chinese restaurants then you really don’t have the grip on emergence as a phenomenon you claim to have.

A classic.

[Alan Burns]

Ha, so you think a quick hop skip and jump diverting the focus to souls will get you out of a deterministic knot ? whatever the mechanism of choice, it still is subject to the principle that an action is either derived or it isn't, in which case it is random.  That which is derived is not free, it is a consequence.

For all practical purpose we can assume that reality is deterministic; this allows for predicability, for meaning. The chaos of a random world would be unintelligible.  The way that light is diffracted through a lens is determined by the properties of the lens. For a thought experiment, suppose I go up to some random bloke in the street and call his mother a whore.  After I pick myself up I regret not having realised this this bloke, he believes I was asking for it, if he doesn't sort me out, I might go and do the same to someone else. Probably a conservative to boot. So I choose my next victim with more care, a hare krishna devotee coming singing down the street chanting the name of god.  I insult his mother, but his mind is calmed by his practice, and he holds the Ghandian principle of non-violence so dear, that he manages to suppress his urge to take a swing at me.  We might say, he has demonstrated his free will; or perhaps free won't, and this is a characteristic of, but not unique to, humans.  But both reactions are understandable, both are compatible with determinism. Each brain is unique, each brain has had a unique formative journey through life, each brain ends up with a unique system of values and hence, like lenses processing the light differently, each brain processes action and reaction uniquely producing different signature outcomes.  Adding a layer of 'soul' stuff on top of the mechanisms of choice adds nothing of any explanatory value.

Souls are completely compatible with determinism, but not with the deterministic nature in the reactive properties of material based entities over which there can be no control - just inevitable uncontrolled reaction.  The question is in what determines your conscious will.  In your scenario, there can be no entity within you which can exert conscious control or choice - all is just inevitable reaction.  You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by conscious willpower.  The entity within you which exerts control is not random, neither is it uncontrollable reaction.  It is not shackled by the uncontrollable nature of physical cause and effect, but driven by the spiritual interaction of the human soul - which is you.  We all have the freedom to choose our own destiny.

[Maeght]

Souls are completely compatible with determinism, but not with the deterministic nature in the reactive properties of material based entities over which there can be no control - just inevitable uncontrolled reaction.  The question is in what determines your conscious will.  In your scenario, there can be no entity within you which can exert conscious control or choice - all is just inevitable reaction.  You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by conscious willpower.  The entity within you which exerts control is not random, neither is it uncontrollable reaction.  It is not shackled by the uncontrollable nature of physical cause and effect, but driven by the spiritual interaction of the human soul - which is you.  We all have the freedom to choose our own destiny.

If it is neither random nor predetermined how does it determine what it wants to will?!?

[Sebastian Toe]

Souls are completely compatible with determinism, but not with the deterministic nature in the reactive properties of material based entities over which there can be no control - just inevitable uncontrolled reaction.  The question is in what determines your conscious will.  In your scenario, there can be no entity within you which can exert conscious control or choice - all is just inevitable reaction.  You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by conscious willpower.  The entity within you which exerts control is not random, neither is it uncontrollable reaction.  It is not shackled by the uncontrollable nature of physical cause and effect, but driven by the spiritual interaction of the human soul - which is you.  We all have the freedom to choose our own destiny.

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by subconscious willpower.

[Shaker]

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by subconscious willpower.

Personally I disagree. I don't think it's an inability; I think it's not wanting to consider the thing to be true because of the ramifications for his worldview.

[Alan Burns]

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by subconscious willpower.

If it is directed from subconscious it can't be deliberate.

[Sebastian Toe]

If it is directed from subconscious it can't be deliberate.

Oh yes it can.

[wigginhall]

Souls are completely compatible with determinism, but not with the deterministic nature in the reactive properties of material based entities over which there can be no control - just inevitable uncontrolled reaction.  The question is in what determines your conscious will.  In your scenario, there can be no entity within you which can exert conscious control or choice - all is just inevitable reaction.  You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of your thoughts being deliberately directed by conscious willpower.  The entity within you which exerts control is not random, neither is it uncontrollable reaction.  It is not shackled by the uncontrollable nature of physical cause and effect, but driven by the spiritual interaction of the human soul - which is you.  We all have the freedom to choose our own destiny.

But freedom that is not constrained, is pure randomness.   This is without information.   It's because the universe is full of constraints, that it is able to contain information.    If we are free, then we are not constrained, then we are randomized.