Author Topic: Searching for GOD...  (Read 3876060 times)

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24300 on: November 30, 2017, 09:47:13 PM »
It defies any scientific definition, far beyond anything which can be produced from material reactions alone

Back to totally baseless blind faith assertion. Well, I guess if you're happy with your impoverished fairy tale view of things, then that's okay for you. However, best not kid yourself that it has anything at all to do with logic, reason, or evidence or that it is in the least bit convincing, let alone attractive, to those of us who value those things.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24301 on: November 30, 2017, 09:49:38 PM »
.......... far beyond anything which can be produced from material reactions alone

He asserted.

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10210
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24302 on: November 30, 2017, 09:55:08 PM »
You don't 'know', Alan.

It seems to me that you simply aren't content to just believe and that, instead, you've contrived a hook to hang your God on comprising repetitive fallacy-ridden theobabble involving souls and consciousness. Also, as far as I can see, you are ploughing a lone furrow here since I'm not aware that neurologists are looking for evidence of God or that theologians see neurology as providing support for divine agency.
But despite all the neurological research to date, they have not really got past the arguments put forward by Gottfried Leibniz over three hundred years ago -

In Section 17 of the Monadology Leibniz presents an argument that is concerned with the relationship between mentality and machines. This passage is often referred to as Leibniz’s mill argument. It runs as follows:

[W]e must confess that perception, and what depends upon it, is inexplicable in terms of mechanical reasons, that is through shapes, size, and motions. If we imagine a machine whose structure makes it think, sense, and have perceptions, we could conceive it enlarged, keeping the same proportions, so that we could enter into it, as one enters a mill. Assuming that, when inspecting its interior, we will find only parts that push one another, and we will never find anything to explain a perception. And so, one should seek perception in the simple substance and not in the composite or in the machine.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Joy is the Gigantic Secret of Christians - GK Chesterton

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24303 on: November 30, 2017, 10:16:52 PM »
But despite all the neurological research to date, they have not really got past the arguments put forward by Gottfried Leibniz over three hundred years ago -

In Section 17 of the Monadology Leibniz presents an argument that is concerned with the relationship between mentality and machines. This passage is often referred to as Leibniz’s mill argument. It runs as follows:

[W]e must confess that perception, and what depends upon it, is inexplicable in terms of mechanical reasons, that is through shapes, size, and motions. If we imagine a machine whose structure makes it think, sense, and have perceptions, we could conceive it enlarged, keeping the same proportions, so that we could enter into it, as one enters a mill. Assuming that, when inspecting its interior, we will find only parts that push one another, and we will never find anything to explain a perception. And so, one should seek perception in the simple substance and not in the composite or in the machine.


Much as Liebniz is a notable figure, do you think his views are authoritative as regards neurology in the 21st century?

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10209
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24304 on: December 01, 2017, 06:30:17 AM »
But no matter how much technical description you apply to it, in essence it is just individual atoms and molecules reacting with their immediate neighbours.  What you are implying is that a specific arrangement of these atoms and molecules can generate what comprises our conscious awareness.  Which implies that a rock could in theory be zapped into a conscious human just by re arranging the molecular structure. 

Well that is what the evidence suggests, very broadly speaking. We are made of universe stuff, just rearranged.  I eat a hamburger; via processes of digestion etc some of that hamburger gets rearranged into cellular structures of a form that support the information flows that we feel as sentience.  Ditto when a monkey eats a banana.   Claiming this process to be magic merely blinds one to any understanding of the nature of things and how they work.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10209
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24305 on: December 01, 2017, 06:52:46 AM »
Can you not see the obvious fact that the arrangement of the atoms and molecules is just a material mechanism which transmits information using their scientifically determined reactions?  They can in no way be shown to be generating conscious perception of their activity.  Atoms and molecules react - they do not perceive.

Atoms and molecules react - correct
they do not perceive - correct

However, perception emerges from billions of such primitive reactions.  Each reaction at a low level is an individual information transformation.  Higher level phenomena such as perception are information flows that derive from such lower level informational transactions.  Your argument is tantamount to claiming that houses cannot exist because houses are made of bricks and bricks aren't houses.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2017, 06:54:56 AM by torridon »

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10210
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24306 on: December 01, 2017, 07:51:47 AM »
Atoms and molecules react - correct
they do not perceive - correct

However, perception emerges from billions of such primitive reactions.  Each reaction at a low level is an individual information transformation.  Higher level phenomena such as perception are information flows that derive from such lower level informational transactions.  Your argument is tantamount to claiming that houses cannot exist because houses are made of bricks and bricks aren't houses.
A house is just a label we apply to an externally perceived pattern of bricks.  It is still a load of bricks.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Joy is the Gigantic Secret of Christians - GK Chesterton

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24307 on: December 01, 2017, 08:02:20 AM »
A house is just a label we apply to an externally perceived pattern of bricks.  It is still a load of bricks.

Your 'externally perceived', Alan, does seems like unnecessary hyperbole - 'I see a house'is sufficient, where 'the house I see contains bricks' can qualify that - so what?

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10210
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24308 on: December 01, 2017, 08:05:23 AM »
However, perception emerges from billions of such primitive reactions.
But what does it emerge into?  For it to work you will need some form of receptacle for all these primitive reactions.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Joy is the Gigantic Secret of Christians - GK Chesterton

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10210
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24309 on: December 01, 2017, 08:08:06 AM »
Your 'externally perceived', Alan, does seems like unnecessary hyperbole - 'I see a house'is sufficient,
No.  The concept of house only exists in the eye and mind of the perceiver. 
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Joy is the Gigantic Secret of Christians - GK Chesterton

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24310 on: December 01, 2017, 08:15:44 AM »
But despite all the neurological research to date, they have not really got past the arguments put forward by Gottfried Leibniz over three hundred years ago -

Yes, 'they' have. Leibniz lived in the 17/18 Centuries, before pretty much all of the main insights and relevant scientific discoveries that contribute to the modern approaches.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24311 on: December 01, 2017, 08:17:50 AM »
No.  The concept of house only exists in the eye and mind of the perceiver.

...and said mind is a complex information processing entity. Oh... a bit like a brain, perhaps.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

floo

  • Guest
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24312 on: December 01, 2017, 08:39:00 AM »
AB's posts are getting more and more surreal. ::)

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24313 on: December 01, 2017, 09:34:43 AM »
No.  The concept of house only exists in the eye and mind of the perceiver.

How is the concept of a house all that different from a house?

Concepts tend to be far less specific and even intangible: for example, altruism, compared to the assembled bricks, wood, cabling and mortar we refer to as a house. You are both over-thinking and not thinking clearly - I suspect that is because you are so very busy manufacturing the spurious hook I mentioned previously; the one you hang your God on.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10209
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24314 on: December 01, 2017, 09:35:34 AM »
Quote
However, perception emerges from billions of such primitive reactions.
But what does it emerge into?  For it to work you will need some form of receptacle for all these primitive reactions.

Not sure into 'into' and 'receptacle' are quite the right terms, but broadly speaking, we could reply 'mind'.  Mind being a focal point for all perception and cognition.  Perception becomes part of that information vortex.

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10210
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24315 on: December 03, 2017, 07:03:46 PM »
Much as Liebniz is a notable figure, do you think his views are authoritative as regards neurology in the 21st century?
But in essence, neurology has got no further than discovering what Liebniz aptly describes as "parts that push one another" - in other words, reactions.  So we still have the dilemma put forward by Liebniz that material reactions alone, no matter how complex, do not define perception.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Joy is the Gigantic Secret of Christians - GK Chesterton

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10210
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24316 on: December 03, 2017, 07:13:21 PM »
But what does it emerge into?  For it to work you will need some form of receptacle for all these primitive reactions.


Not sure into 'into' and 'receptacle' are quite the right terms, but broadly speaking, we could reply 'mind'.  Mind being a focal point for all perception and cognition.  Perception becomes part of that information vortex.
But these words and phrases you use - "mind", "focal point of perception", and "information vortex" have no definitive definition in material terms.  There has to be a single entity of conscious perception for all this information in your brain.  And it can't be defined or compared to the instinctive, predictable behaviour of animals which can be entirely defined by material reactions.  Conscious perception is not a reaction, just an awareness of reality.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. - CS Lewis
Joy is the Gigantic Secret of Christians - GK Chesterton

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24317 on: December 03, 2017, 07:16:42 PM »
But in essence, neurology has got no further than discovering what Liebniz aptly describes as "parts that push one another" - in other words, reactions.  So we still have the dilemma put forward by Liebniz that material reactions alone, no matter how complex, do not define perception.

This has already been dealt with. We know a great deal more than in Liebniz's time.

Liebniz thought he had a killer argument about why atoms couldn't exist, too.

...material reactions alone, no matter how complex, do not define perception.

Yet again, why keep repeating the same thing? Unless you can tell us what is required for perception, you cannot know that "material reactions" cannot produce it.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24318 on: December 03, 2017, 07:18:49 PM »
This has already been dealt with. We know a great deal more than in Liebniz's time.

Liebniz thought he had a killer argument about why atoms couldn't exist, too.
So did Ernst Mach at the beginning of the 20th century. He's fared about as well.
Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back. - Al Swearengen, Deadwood.

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24319 on: December 03, 2017, 07:21:36 PM »
But these words and phrases you use - "mind", "focal point of perception", and "information vortex" have no definitive definition in material terms.  There has to be a single entity of conscious perception for all this information in your brain.  And it can't be defined or compared to the instinctive, predictable behaviour of animals which can be entirely defined by material reactions.
Here comes the argument ad snowflakium again ::)
Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back. - Al Swearengen, Deadwood.

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24320 on: December 03, 2017, 07:26:12 PM »
There has to be a single entity of conscious perception for all this information in your brain.

According to all the evidence, it is the brain. You seem to have this bizarre and unfounded idea (which is one of the problems with Liebniz's argument) that an "entity of conscious perception" is a simple, indivisible thing.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24321 on: December 03, 2017, 07:29:22 PM »
But in essence, neurology has got no further than discovering what Liebniz aptly describes as "parts that push one another" - in other words, reactions.  So we still have the dilemma put forward by Liebniz that material reactions alone, no matter how complex, do not define perception.

Prepare yourself for a shock: Liebniz wasn't a neurologist, and knowledge in general has moved on a tad since his times.

You are using a fallacy again too: an argument from authority, and ironically, given we are discussing neurology, you a citing someone as an authority who isn't one (given he's been dead these last 301 years).   

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24322 on: December 03, 2017, 07:32:42 PM »
Conscious perception is not a reaction, just an awareness of reality.

Could that awareness of reality just be a reaction to reality? I know you like your buzzwords, Alan, but perhaps you are indulging in tautology here.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10209
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24323 on: December 04, 2017, 06:38:57 AM »
But these words and phrases you use - "mind", "focal point of perception", and "information vortex" have no definitive definition in material terms. 

We don't have 'definitive' definitions for anything Alan, so what should we do, throw out all the knowledge that we have accrued to date through observation and enquiry and substitute in its place your lexicon of souls and gods which have entirely no evidence and no definition at all ? Is that really a forward step for an enquiring mind ?


There has to be a single entity of conscious perception for all this information in your brain.  And it can't be defined or compared to the instinctive, predictable behaviour of animals which can be entirely defined by material reactions.  Conscious perception is not a reaction, just an awareness of reality.

And any prey animal that was not aware of the predator creeping up on it would not survive to pass on the mechanisms by which that awareness is procured.  All creatures with brains have highly developed and refined perception of their surroundings, this is what brains do for us; try living without a brain and we would not survive for more than a second or two.

As for a 'single entity' of perception, it would be slightly more accurate to talk in terms of a 'focal point' of perception; the word 'entity' can suggest something of distinct ontology operating within a creature; this makes no sense and there is no evidence in support of it. We get no further forward by imagining that a dolphin has to have another little invisible dolphin inside it to be the thing which experiences sight and sound and awareness.  That is what brains brains do, they synchronise and orchestrate all those multitudinous information flows procured via external senses and a central nervous system into an apparently singular synthesised information flow that we might call 'experience'.   Your 'single entity of perception' is better described as the 'conscious self' which is a derivative product of brain function, not something separate to it.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 06:45:08 AM by torridon »

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #24324 on: December 04, 2017, 07:30:30 AM »
try living without a brain and we would not survive for more than a second or two.
You're on R & E; wrong audience.
Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back. - Al Swearengen, Deadwood.