Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

The example you give of a chimp fashioning a twig to make a tool to extract termites from a mound is one of many such examples in animals being able to use learnt behaviour to achieve a specific instinctive goal.

The example you give of humans being able to imagine blue bananas is a typical example of human imagination which satisfies no instinctive need and is done entirely through the gift of free thought processes for which there can be no viable materialistic explanation.

There's not much difference here.  Chimps use ingenuity and imagination to solve problems.  So do humans.  The thought processes in a chimp trying to figure out exactly how to fashion a twig into a suitable tool is the same as a palaeolithic hunter chipping shards off a lump of flint to fashion it into a handaxe.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not really.
Human experimentation is consciously driven to investigate specific ideas and goals.  Learnt behaviour built up in animals is more likely to be driven by the memory of desirable outcomes from non specific behaviour and events.

https://youtu.be/U8CjsROXzz0

[Alan Burns]

So, basically you seem to saying that you can't see how "material elements" can result in thought, so they can't - which is textbook argument from incredulity/ignorance.

Human endeavours have not been able to replicate thought in any material form. Thought processes can be mimicked using computer hardware and programmed logic, but it is all ultimately based upon the predictable reactions of material elements.  This can't be defined as thought, because thought in human terms is perceived, and there is no entity of conscious perception in a computer.  My deduction that there can be no entity of conscious perception in any purely material based object is my honest conclusion based upon all facts known to me.  I can only share what I honestly believe to be true, in the hope that others will come to terms with their spiritual nature and God given gifts which derive from the human soul.

[Shaker]

I can only share what I honestly believe to be true

Yes we know - although several posters have questioned your honesty, not least in your relentless insistence on using logical fallacies time after time after time despite being told, clearly and repeatedly, that your would-be arguments are hopeless.

Sadly for you, in this universe honest belief has never been synonymous with correct, which as far as we can tell seems to be your take on it.

in the hope that others will come to terms with their spiritual nature and God given gifts which derive from the human soul.

How's that faring?

[floo]

Human endeavours have not been able to replicate thought in any material form. Thought processes can be mimicked using computer hardware and programmed logic, but it is all ultimately based upon the predictable reactions of material elements.  This can't be defined as thought, because thought in human terms is perceived, and there is no entity of conscious perception in a computer.  My deduction that there can be no entity of conscious perception in any purely material based object is my honest conclusion based upon all facts known to me.  I can only share what I honestly believe to be true, in the hope that others will come to terms with their spiritual nature and God given gifts which derive from the human soul.

I believe you when you say you honestly believe it to be true, but my experience of life and religion makes me believe the Biblical god doesn't exist.

[Stranger]

So, basically you seem to saying that you can't see how "material elements" can result in thought, so they can't - which is textbook argument from incredulity/ignorance.

Human endeavours have not been able to replicate thought in any material form. Thought processes can be mimicked using computer hardware and programmed logic, but it is all ultimately based upon the predictable reactions of material elements.  This can't be defined as thought, because thought in human terms is perceived, and there is no entity of conscious perception in a computer.

All of which is just repeating the same fallacy: you can't understand how material processes can lead to thought or conscious perception, so they can't.

My deduction that there can be no entity of conscious perception in any purely material based object is my honest conclusion based upon all facts known to me.

Except it isn't actually a deduction, it's just your belief.

I can only share what I honestly believe to be true, in the hope that others will come to terms with their spiritual nature and God given gifts which derive from the human soul.

There's nothing wrong with sharing what you honestly believe but you are dishonestly presenting it as if it is a logical or reasoned conclusion, rather than a belief or opinion. I have no idea how you think that will help with your stated hope...

[Alan Burns]

https://youtu.be/U8CjsROXzz0

Classic examples of learnt behaviour which produce rewards

[Alan Burns]

Human endeavours have not been able to replicate thought in any material form. Thought processes can be mimicked using computer hardware and programmed logic, but it is all ultimately based upon the predictable reactions of material elements.  This can't be defined as thought, because thought in human terms is perceived, and there is no entity of conscious perception in a computer.


All of which is just repeating the same fallacy: you can't understand how material processes can lead to thought or conscious perception, so they can't.

Except it isn't actually a deduction, it's just your belief.

There's nothing wrong with sharing what you honestly believe but you are dishonestly presenting it as if it is a logical or reasoned conclusion, rather than a belief or opinion. I have no idea how you think that will help with your stated hope...

But as I have repeatedly explained, my deductions are not just beliefs or opinions or hopes, they are based on known facts, and I honestly can't see why my logical deductions can be labelled as fallacies.  Non believers may continue to assume that there must be a material based explanation for our conscious awareness and free will, but I fear their wait for such an explanation will not come to fruition in their lifetime, or in any other lifetime.

[Maeght]

Your assertions aren't facts Alan.

[Stranger]

But as I have repeatedly explained, my deductions are not just beliefs or opinions or hopes, they are based on known facts, and I honestly can't see why my logical deductions can be labelled as fallacies.

Alan, why don't you just take some time to at least try to understand? It's been explained several times and you appear to be just ignoring it.

You haven't made any deductions. You are basically using an argument from ignorance - you are trying to use the fact that we don't know something (how consciousness works) to argue that something else is true (it can't be 'material').

You can't deduce that a physical explanation for consciousness is impossible from the fact that we don't have one yet.

Is that really so hard?

Non believers may continue to assume that there must be a material based explanation for our conscious awareness and free will, but I fear their wait for such an explanation will not come to fruition in their lifetime, or in any other lifetime.

You may sincerely believe that - you may even be right (leaving aside the logical absurdities of most notions of 'free will') - but you can't deduce it logically from the current lack of an established theory of consciousness.

Look, I happen to think that Daniel Dennett's ideas about consciousness are very convincing (I highly recommend his book From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds) but I wouldn't dream of trying to tell somebody that we can logically deduce that they are right, just from my view that they are plausible.

It's about intellectual honesty.

[Shaker]

But as I have repeatedly explained

Asserted.

I honestly can't see why my logical deductions can be labelled as fallacies.

Your fundamental problem is that to commit a fallacy means that you're demonstrably wrong in matters of reasoning and logic, and you don't want to think of yourself as being wrong.

The second problem - hardly less severe than the first - is that you deny logic. Such is your horror of being wrong and being shown to be wrong, you actually try to argue that logical fallacies are matters of opinion, such as preferring salt and vinegar crisps to cheese and onion. Guess what? You're still wrong.

Non believers may continue to assume that there must be a material based explanation for our conscious awareness and free will, but I fear their wait for such an explanation will not come to fruition in their lifetime

Lots of things may well not come to fruition in the lifetime of anyone here. Humans on Mars, the union of general relativity and quantum mechanics (both possible, though), you not making a hopeless pseudo-argument (vanishingly unlikely) ... no matter. We'll carry on plugging away.

or in any other lifetime.

Ah. We're back to baseless assertion again. So it goes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.

Look, I happen to think that Daniel Dennett's ideas about consciousness are very convincing (I highly recommend his book From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds)

Other viewpoints on Dennett's work are available.

[Gordon]

But as I have repeatedly explained, my deductions are not just beliefs or opinions or hopes, they are based on known facts, and I honestly can't see why my logical deductions can be labelled as fallacies.

That is because your particular approach to theism, Alan, is getting in the way of your thinking. I suspect you have the compartment in your head labelled 'God' so well protected by now that were you ever to realise just how fallacious your attempts at reasoning are then your belief in 'God' would be a casualty - so you stick doggedly to your mantra.

Non believers may continue to assume that there must be a material based explanation for our conscious awareness and free will, but I fear their wait for such an explanation will not come to fruition in their lifetime, or in any other lifetime.

So we keep looking and revising our understanding when the evidence requires we do: and meantime 'don't know' is a perfectly reasonable holding position.

[Sebastian Toe]

Classic examples of learnt behaviour which produce rewards

Really?
What did the dog learn to do?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's not much difference here.  Chimps use ingenuity and imagination to solve problems.  So do humans.  The thought processes in a chimp trying to figure out exactly how to fashion a twig into a suitable tool is the same as a palaeolithic hunter chipping shards off a lump of flint to fashion it into a handaxe.

Would that be true of Chimps, New Atheists and shit throwing?

[Walter]

Would that be true of Chimps, New Atheists and shit throwing?

tumbleweed

[Alan Burns]

Alan, why don't you just take some time to at least try to understand? It's been explained several times and you appear to be just ignoring it.

You haven't made any deductions. You are basically using an argument from ignorance - you are trying to use the fact that we don't know something (how consciousness works) to argue that something else is true (it can't be 'material').

I admit that I do not know how consciousness works, but I do know that it requires the entity of awareness (ourselves) to be able to perceive the information contained in thousands of discrete brain cells at any one moment in time.  In material terms, there is a problem in being able to define a single entity of awareness which can perceive such information.  Material entities can pass on information to other material entities, but there is nothing capable of perceiving all this information.  Such networks of information processing can certainly induce complex reactions, but reaction is not perception.  So my deduction is based upon the impossibility that a single entity of awareness can be generated by material elements, no matter how complex the arrangement of these material elements.

[Enki]

The proof comes from God Himself, once you open the door to let Him into your life.

No, Alan. That's putting the cart before the horse. You can't prove that something exists by first believing in that something. That would only produce an entirely subjective judgement which might satisfy the person concerned but would have little value in establishing the existence or non existence of that particular something. As I said, I think you need to think this through more clearly, not just from your extremely committed personal viewpoint.

[Stranger]

I admit that I do not know how consciousness works, but I do know that it requires the entity of awareness (ourselves) to be able to perceive the information contained in thousands of discrete brain cells at any one moment in time.  In material terms, there is a problem in being able to define a single entity of awareness which can perceive such information.  Material entities can pass on information to other material entities, but there is nothing capable of perceiving all this information.  Such networks of information processing can certainly induce complex reactions, but reaction is not perception.  So my deduction is based upon the impossibility that a single entity of awareness can be generated by material elements, no matter how complex the arrangement of these material elements.

You're just repeating the same fallacy with more words.

The point is that you have no idea how an "entity of awareness" works and no idea of the limitations of "material elements" - so your claim of impossibility is just empty assertion based on your incredulity.

Calling it a 'deduction' is intellectual dishonesty (perhaps with yourself).

[torridon]

But as I have repeatedly explained, my deductions are not just beliefs or opinions or hopes, they are based on known facts, and I honestly can't see why my logical deductions can be labelled as fallacies.  Non believers may continue to assume that there must be a material based explanation for our conscious awareness and free will, but I fear their wait for such an explanation will not come to fruition in their lifetime, or in any other lifetime.

It's not non-believers working to understand conscious awareness, it is relevant segments of the science community for example artificial intelligence, robotics, neuroscience, cognitive science, anaesthetists, philosophers and others.  The work they do is based on scientific principles of observation and experiment and the direction of research follows where the evidence leads.  If you know something that all these specialist researchers don't perhaps you ought to tell them and save all those billions of research dollars being wasted.

[Maeght]

I admit that I do not know how consciousness works, but I do know that it requires the entity of awareness (ourselves) to be able to perceive the information contained in thousands of discrete brain cells at any one moment in time.  In material terms, there is a problem in being able to define a single entity of awareness which can perceive such information.  Material entities can pass on information to other material entities, but there is nothing capable of perceiving all this information.  Such networks of information processing can certainly induce complex reactions, but reaction is not perception.  So my deduction is based upon the impossibility that a single entity of awareness can be generated by material elements, no matter how complex the arrangement of these material elements.

More assertions, not knowledge.

[wigginhall]

The amount of begging the question in Alan's post is quite awesome.   For example, 'thousands of discrete brain cells' - what does 'discrete' mean here?   'There is nothing capable of perceiving this information' - hang on, I thought that was the enquiry here, already solved apparently.   'Reaction is not perception' - but it might be involved in perception.   'the impossibility that a single entity of awareness can be generated using material elements', hang on, how do we get to 'impossible'? 

I suppose it's based on hope really.   Alan hopes that it's impossible, cos then almighty Chthulu can swing into action, I mean God.

[Alan Burns]

The amount of begging the question in Alan's post is quite awesome.   For example, 'thousands of discrete brain cells' - what does 'discrete' mean here?   'There is nothing capable of perceiving this information' - hang on, I thought that was the enquiry here, already solved apparently.   'Reaction is not perception' - but it might be involved in perception.   'the impossibility that a single entity of awareness can be generated using material elements', hang on, how do we get to 'impossible'? 

I suppose it's based on hope really.   Alan hopes that it's impossible, cos then almighty Chthulu can swing into action, I mean God.

No, it is not hope, just a genuine understanding that conscious perception can't be achieved by material entities alone.  All the research currently being done in the areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics, neuroscience and cognitive science just involve the mechanisms of data flow from one place to another within complex networks.  But data flow is not conscious perception.  Science has not been able to define what comprises conscious perception.  It has not come close.

[Shaker]

No, it is not hope, just a genuine understanding that conscious perception can't be achieved by material entities alone.

So as others have said (and as expected, you have roundly ignored) you know absolutely everything there is to know about material entities (though the word 'material' there is redundant). Arrogant much?

Science has not been able to define what comprises conscious perception.  It has not come close.

And that still manages to be closer than "magic".

[Stranger]

No, it is not hope, just a genuine understanding that conscious perception can't be achieved by material entities alone.

Firstly, you have shown no understanding at all of the problem - just made bold assertions based (apparently) on nothing but logical fallacies, incredulity, intuition, and wishful thinking.

Secondly (as people keep pointing out), the amount of understanding you would need to make your 'argument' work is a complete understanding of exactly what conciseness is and how it can be achieved, together with an equally complete understanding of the physical universe.

All the research currently being done in the areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics, neuroscience and cognitive science just involve the mechanisms of data flow from one place to another within complex networks.  But data flow is not conscious perception.

How do you know that some kind of "data flow" isn't what produces conscious perception? You don't - nobody does.

Science has not been able to define what comprises conscious perception.  It has not come close.

How do you know how close it's come? There have been suggestions, one of them might be entirely correct. We simply don't know.

So, on the one hand, we have your planet sized ego, intuition, incredulity, library of logical fallacies, and basic dishonesty. On the other, we have the honest attempts to understand the subject and the rational conclusion that it is still a work in progress.

Hum...