Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

The conscious awareness of my human soul 

How about an answer that isn't circular ?

What makes you think that conscious awareness in humans is not natural ?

[ippy]

The conscious awareness of my human soul 

And your evidence that proves this human soul idea of yours really does exist?

Only we're well into this marathon of a thread now and you still haven't supplied anything credible about this human soul of yours to date Alan.

Hope all is well with you, don't let things worry you too much and best wishes to you Alan, ippy

[Stranger]

Well, I fail to see how our abilities to guide our own thoughts and make conscious choices can possibly count as evidence for a physically deterministic universe.

I didn't say it was. What I said was that it isn't evidence for your magic soul idea.

It's really very simple: every single conjecture and idea that has ever been put forward regarding consciousness, thoughts, and choices are attempts to explain our experience of them - so claiming that our experience is evidence for your notion of a soul in particular, is tantamount to lying.

I said this most recently (and definitely not for the first time) in #28055 and despite your claims to be reading and understanding the responses you get, you continue to ignore it and post the same dishonest claims over and over and over again...

[Alan Burns]

It's really very simple: every single conjecture and idea that has ever been put forward regarding consciousness, thoughts, and choices are attempts to explain our experience of them - so claiming that our experience is evidence for your notion of a soul in particular, is tantamount to lying.

The key word in this conjecture is "attempts".
Yes there have been many attempts to explain human conscious awareness, but none have succeeded.  All we have is some correlation of physical brain activity, but correlation does not prove or explain causation.  And I have previously postulated the impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being defined by material reactions alone.  Material reactions on their own can't define conscious awareness, because conscious awareness requires perception of many discrete reactions by a single entity - it can't be defined by the material reactions alone.

[Gordon]

The key word in this conjecture is "attempts".
Yes there have been many attempts to explain human conscious awareness, but none have succeeded.  All we have is some correlation of physical brain activity, but correlation does not prove or explain causation.  And I have previously postulated the impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being defined by material reactions alone.  Material reactions on their own can't define conscious awareness, because conscious awareness requires perception of many discrete reactions by a single entity - it can't be defined by the material reactions alone.

This sounds like a fallacious argument from authority, Alan - with the added twist that you've now become your own authority! Given your predilection for arguments from ignorance and incredulity I fear you aren't as authoritative as you seem to think you are.

[SusanDoris]

In my opinion ~AB is completely useless as an authority!, particularly on consciousness etc!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The key word in this conjecture is "attempts".
Yes there have been many attempts to explain human conscious awareness, but none have succeeded.  All we have is some correlation of physical brain activity, but correlation does not prove or explain causation.

Just out of interest, why do you persist with this idiocy?

“Attempts” just means that we have yet to obtain a complete model of consciousness, but that doesn’t mean that we have no model at all. Actually we have a great deal of knowledge from multiple disciplines, all pointing in the same directions of consciousness being an emergent property of the information processing done by those mushy things called “brains”.

If you don’t like that then your first job would be to explain why all that research is wrong. In the unlikely event that you could do this, your second job to get you from the blank page of a “don’t know” to “soul” etc would be to construct a model for it that has coherent definitions of its terms, cogent arguments for its existence, and a reliable and repeatable means of investigation.

So far though you offer nothing to invalidate the evidence we do have, and no evidence of any kind that would validate your conjecture “soul”.     

And I have previously postulated the impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being defined by material reactions alone.

You can postulate anything you like, but – so far at least – you have no argument to support it. Why on earth wouldn’t “conscious awareness” as you put it be a property of our physical selves, and what would the non-natural alternative even be in any case other than, “it’s magic innit”?

Material reactions on their own can't define conscious awareness, because conscious awareness requires perception of many discrete reactions by a single entity - it can't be defined by the material reactions alone.

And you make the astonishing but entirely un-reasoned and un-evidenced assertion on what grounds exactly?

So far as I can tell your “thinking” goes like this:

1. I work with PCs.

2. PCs are processing machines.

3. PCs are not self-aware.

4. Brains are processing machines.

5. Therefore brains cannot be self-aware.

It’s desperately poor thinking, not least because you fundamentally underestimate the complexity of brains as opposed to the relative crudeness PCs, and you have no basis of any kind to assert that the human (and other animal) mind cannot “perceive” itself.

It’s not hard for the rest of us to see where you keep going wrong Alan, so why is it so hard for you?

[Stranger]

The key word in this conjecture is "attempts".
Yes there have been many attempts to explain human conscious awareness, but none have succeeded.  All we have is some correlation of physical brain activity, but correlation does not prove or explain causation.

Firstly, how do you know that one of the current ideas about consciousness isn't correct? Secondly, you are speaking as if you have an explanation - which you clearly don't. All you have suggested is logically self-contradictory magic.

And I have previously postulated the impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being defined by material reactions alone.

You've frequently asserted that but, as has also been pointed out before, unless you know how "conscious awareness" works and absolutely everything about the material universe, you cannot possible know it.

You haven't even offered any evidence or logic (despite your claims that you have both).

Material reactions on their own can't define conscious awareness, because conscious awareness requires perception of many discrete reactions by a single entity - it can't be defined by the material reactions alone.

Back to baseless assertions....

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just out of interest, why do you persist with this idiocy?

“Attempts” just means that we have yet to obtain a complete model of consciousness, but that doesn’t mean that we have no model at all. Actually we have a great deal of knowledge from multiple disciplines, all pointing in the same directions of consciousness being an emergent property of the information processing done by those mushy things called “brains”.

If you don’t like that then your first job would be to explain why all that research is wrong. In the unlikely event that you could do this, your second job to get you from the blank page of a “don’t know” to “soul” etc would be to construct a model for it that has coherent definitions of its terms, cogent arguments for its existence, and a reliable and repeatable means of investigation.

So far though you offer nothing to invalidate the evidence we do have, and no evidence of any kind that would validate your conjecture “soul”.     

You can postulate anything you like, but – so far at least – you have no argument to support it. Why on earth wouldn’t “conscious awareness” as you put it be a property of our physical selves, and what would the non-natural alternative even be in any case other than, “it’s magic innit”?

And you make the astonishing but entirely un-reasoned and un-evidenced assertion on what grounds exactly?

So far as I can tell your “thinking” goes like this:

1. I work with PCs.

2. PCs are processing machines.

3. PCs are not self-aware.

4. Brains are processing machines.

5. Therefore brains cannot be self-aware.

It’s desperately poor thinking, not least because you fundamentally underestimate the complexity of brains as opposed to the relative crudeness PCs, and you have no basis of any kind to assert that the human (and other animal) mind cannot “perceive” itself.

It’s not hard for the rest of us to see where you keep going wrong Alan, so why is it so hard for you?

And in all this you continue to provide ample evidence of your own freedom to think up detailed arguments against my conjectures.  Where precisely do you presume this freedom emanates from?  What drives your thought processes?  What is the ultimate cause of your responses?  Where do they originate?  Can you honestly say that it is all driven by the naturally occurring deterministic events in your brain cells which can only be defined by physical reactions to previous events - controlled entirely by the laws of material science?

[Gordon]

Can you honestly say that it is all driven by the naturally occurring deterministic events in your brain cells which can only be defined by physical reactions to previous events - controlled entirely by the laws of material science?

Yes: ffs!

[Stranger]

And in all this you continue to provide ample evidence of your own freedom to think up detailed arguments against my conjectures.

Nobody disputes this; why do you keep telling us you have evidence for it unless it's to dishonestly claim it as evidence for your soul?

Where precisely do you presume this freedom emanates from?  What drives your thought processes?  What is the ultimate cause of your responses?  Where do they originate?

All the evidence we have indicates that it is the brain.

Can you honestly say that it is all driven by the naturally occurring deterministic events in your brain cells which can only be defined by physical reactions to previous events - controlled entirely by the laws of material science?

That appears to be the case, from the evidence. You have offered no evidence of anything else.

From logic we also know that being non-physical would not make a difference in terms of being deterministic or having some randomness - because those are the only logical ways in which a choice can possibly be made.

This has all been covered, time and time and time again and time and time and time again - what's the point of just repeating the same empty assertions and incredulity?

You are behaving exactly like a mindless software bot. Are you trying to prove that your 'misunderstanding' of other people's position is true and that you have no freedom to think for yourself or choose what to say?

[Alan Burns]

Yes: ffs!

But your response indicates an element of personal choice which may not be attributable to nature alone!

[Sebastian Toe]

But your response indicates an element of personal choice which may not be attributable to nature alone!

..but your response indicates that it is all driven by the naturally occurring deterministic events in your brain cells which can only be defined by physical reactions to previous events - controlled entirely by the laws of material science!

[torridon]

And in all this you continue to provide ample evidence of your own freedom to think up detailed arguments against my conjectures.  Where precisely do you presume this freedom emanates from?  What drives your thought processes?  What is the ultimate cause of your responses?  Where do they originate?  Can you honestly say that it is all driven by the naturally occurring deterministic events in your brain cells which can only be defined by physical reactions to previous events - controlled entirely by the laws of material science?

These cerebral phenomena aren't controlled by science, they are described by science, and by doing so, we can gain understanding of why things happen, why things are the way they are.  Thoughts are triggered, often by previous thoughts; they are also triggered by external change.  I'm writing this post now because I read your post.  All things happen for a reason, and thoughts do not come out of nowhere for no reason.  Your claims that such things have no provenance would deny intelligibility, they would deny meaning.  A world where things did not happen for reasons would be a world of incomprehensible meaningless chaos. It's good that we don't actually live in Burns-World.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And in all this you continue to provide ample evidence of your own freedom to think up detailed arguments against my conjectures.  Where precisely do you presume this freedom emanates from?  What drives your thought processes?  What is the ultimate cause of your responses?  Where do they originate?  Can you honestly say that it is all driven by the naturally occurring deterministic events in your brain cells which can only be defined by physical reactions to previous events - controlled entirely by the laws of material science?

As that’s what the only evidence we have suggests, effectively yes (and they're not the laws "of" science by the way - they're just the laws that science describes).

And again I see that you have just ignored the content of the arguments that undo you in favour of the idiocy of, “but you couldn’t make these arguments if there wasn’t a magic little man at the controls”. Even if we ever had a complete model of consciousness, presumably you’d just ignore that too in favour of, “Ah but now you have a complete explanation for it there must still be a magic little man at the controls who has enabled you to work that out” or some such nonsense.

As you keep just ignoring the problem that there’s no known insurmountable barrier to sufficiently sophisticated processors of information becoming self aware (despite your continued un-reasoned and un-evidenced baseless assertions to the contrary) you’ll be forever lost in a world of childish explanations while all around you if you bothered to look you’d find answers with substance.

The truth will indeed set you free Alan, by why you persist in running headlong in the opposite direction from it is a matter for you.

[Gordon]

But your response indicates an element of personal choice which may not be attributable to nature alone!

Just no: has it occurred to you than you are ploughing a lone furrow here even amongst your fellow theists?

A well known quote from one of you fellow theists (Martin Luther King) is 'Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity': he could have been talking about you, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

These cerebral phenomena aren't controlled by science, they are described by science, and by doing so, we can gain understanding of why things happen, why things are the way they are.  Thoughts are triggered, often by previous thoughts; they are also triggered by external change.  I'm writing this post now because I read your post.  All things happen for a reason, and thoughts do not come out of nowhere for no reason.  Your claims that such things have no provenance would deny intelligibility, they would deny meaning.  A world where things did not happen for reasons would be a world of incomprehensible meaningless chaos. It's good that we don't actually live in Burns-World.

Of course we do things for reasons.  The point I am making is that we have conscious choice over the reasons we use to do things.  Without this conscious choice, everything we do would be just an inevitable reaction.  We can contemplate the reasons for doing something before we do it, which allows us control over what we choose to do.  Thoughts are influenced by previous thoughts, not triggered by them.  A reason exists as a state of mind - it is not a reaction.

[BeRational]

Of course we do things for reasons.  The point I am making is that we have conscious choice over the reasons we use to do things.  Without this conscious choice, everything we do would be just an inevitable reaction.  We can contemplate the reasons for doing something before we do it, which allows us control over what we choose to do.  Thoughts are influenced by previous thoughts, not triggered by them.  A reason exists as a state of mind - it is not a reaction.

How do you know?

How could you tell?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course we do things for reasons.  The point I am making is that we have conscious choice over the reasons we use to do things.  Without this conscious choice, everything we do would be just an inevitable reaction.  We can contemplate the reasons for doing something before we do it, which allows us control over what we choose to do.  Thoughts are influenced by previous thoughts, not triggered by them.  A reason exists as a state of mind - it is not a reaction.

And what type of process to your mind is it that does that "contemplating" - a deterministic one or "it's magic"?

[Alan Burns]

Just no: has it occurred to you than you are ploughing a lone furrow here even amongst your fellow theists?

You are absolutely wrong in saying this.  Our freedom to consciously choose is fundamental to the Christian faith.  And this freedom can't exist in the deterministic scenario of physical entities - it is a power given to us by God in the gift of the human soul.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And what type of process to your mind is it that does that "contemplating" - a deterministic one or "it's magic"?

It is the conscious awareness of the human soul.

[torridon]

Of course we do things for reasons.  The point I am making is that we have conscious choice over the reasons we use to do things.  Without this conscious choice, everything we do would be just an inevitable reaction.  We can contemplate the reasons for doing something before we do it, which allows us control over what we choose to do.  Thoughts are influenced by previous thoughts, not triggered by them.  A reason exists as a state of mind - it is not a reaction.

I disagree, thoughts are triggered by previous thoughts and previous events.  Your idea to write your last post was triggered by reading the previous one from me.  One thing leads to another, that's how it works.

For sure we can contemplate things, that in itself is a thought process, but we cannot choose which thought to think or what state of mind to be in; if that were the case then we would all just choose to be happy all the time.  Reality is not like that, it could not possibly be like that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is the conscious awareness of the human soul.

So "it's magic" it is then.

[Alan Burns]

As you keep just ignoring the problem that there’s no known insurmountable barrier to sufficiently sophisticated processors of information becoming self aware (despite your continued un-reasoned and un-evidenced baseless assertions to the contrary) you’ll be forever lost in a world of childish explanations while all around you if you bothered to look you’d find answers with substance.

But you are making a grossly unsubstantiated assumption in this.  You are assuming that greater physical complexity can generate self awareness.  There is no evidence for this claim.

[Gordon]

It is the conscious awareness of the human soul.

'Human soul' eh!

Best oxymoron of the day - so far.