Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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.

You are implying that everything we do, think or say is just driven by inevitable chain reactions.  If this were true, what on earth is the point of posting on a forum such as this?  This would imply a pointless, meaningless existence over which we have no control - so no point in having self awareness if we have no control.  The gifts of self awareness and free will are essentially what makes us human.

[torridon]

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.

Unwarranted assertion and a non-sequitur to boot.

That freedom, is not a thing, it is a feeling.  On a hot day I feel warm; on a winter's day I feel cold; when I get behind the wheel on the open road, I feel a sense of freedom.  These are all just feelings, they don't have to be some magic pixie dust granted us by some invisible hyperbeing.

[torridon]

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.

Of course there is evidence, that is what ALL the evidence to date has been showing.  Very crudely, brain size correlates to cognitive sophistication.  Clearly that doesn't prove anything, but that is what the evidence points to, and that is how we prorgess in understanding, by paying due attention to the evidence.

[torridon]

You are implying that everything we do, think or say is just driven by inevitable chain reactions.  If this were true, what on earth is the point of posting on a forum such as this?  This would imply a pointless, meaningless existence over which we have no control - so no point in having self awareness if we have no control.  The gifts of self awareness and free will are essentially what makes us human.

Clearly there is point to self awareness or it would not have evolved and it would not have been preserved.  Self awareness is not a human only thing, a have it or not have it thing; it exists to some degree in some form throughout all higher animals; we just have it in perhaps richer degree and form.  And as for free will, well it is really just a feeling, a feeling that characterises us humans, but it is still just a feeling.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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.

As ever, you have it backwards. What I actually said was that there's no known barrier to a sufficiently sophisticated processor of information becoming self aware. You're the one making the positive assertion that there is ("it's absolutely impossible" etc) so it's your job finally to validate your assertion to tell us what that supposed barrier is.

What we do have on the other hand is a huge amount amount of evidence that does point to consciousness as an emergent property - and, so far at least, nothing whatever from you that would falsify it.

Why is that?

[Alan Burns]

What we do have on the other hand is a huge amount amount of evidence that does point to consciousness as an emergent property - and, so far at least, nothing whatever from you that would falsify it.

Why is that?

What falsifies the idea of self awareness being an emergent property is the simple logic that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions.  Awareness is not defined by reactions nor can it be a property of reactions alone.  Awareness is perception of reactions, and any attempt to define it in terms of reactions alone is built on similar thinking to the alchemists of old.

[Enki]

You are implying that everything we do, think or say is just driven by inevitable chain reactions.  If this were true, what on earth is the point of posting on a forum such as this?  This would imply a pointless, meaningless existence over which we have no control - so no point in having self awareness if we have no control.  The gifts of self awareness and free will are essentially what makes us human.

As there is much evidence that I am the sum total of my body and brain, and no evidence that I have something which you call a 'soul', I am making choices(the act of choosing between two or more possibilities). Why on earth should this mean I haven't control? If I make a decision, and allowing for outside constraints, it is as a result of my nature, nurture, memory, physical constraints, previous thoughts etc. and the interraction of all these within my brain. In other words, it is me that is controlling the decisions I make.
That I can do no other than make a particular choice at any particular moment doesn't negate the choice I have made, or make it meaningless. From my point of view, the choice that I make I might consider to be full of meaning.

Self awareness is only awareness taken one step further to include oneself. Awareness is of huge evolutionary advantage, so that it should come as no surprise that many animals show this ability. Some of the more complex and social animals show a degree of self awareness which again has the potential of giving evolutionary advantage, and this obviously includes humans, which have a particularly well developed sense of self awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What falsifies the idea of self awareness being an emergent property is the simple logic that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions.

What “logic”? You have none.

Awareness is not defined by reactions nor can it be a property of reactions alone.  Awareness is perception of reactions, and any attempt to define it in terms of reactions alone is built on similar thinking to the alchemists of old.

And the whole point of consciousness as an emergent property is that the perception is self-perception. I can see that to, say, a very young person or to someone in the middle ages there’d be an attraction to the notion of a separate “me” at the controls but that idea has long since been replaced by more robust reasoning and by evidence.

You can cling to the flat wrong stuff if you like, but it just makes you look a fool when you essay it in front of people with the wit to see how hopeless it is.

And that's your problem here.

[torridon]

What falsifies the idea of self awareness being an emergent property is the simple logic that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions. 

That's not falsification, that's merely your assertion, born of nothing grander than incredulity.  You'll have to do more than merely assert it, you'd need to demonstrate why your assertion is correct.

[ippy]

Alan, have a read of Dr V C Ramachanderon's book 'Phantoms in the Brain', I think not only would you enjoy it, it's a very good consuming easy read.

I found it particularly interesting where he assists a woman that could only recognise one half of her body, right or left can't remember, but that doesn't matter, it's how the Doctor manages to find a cure, he's just such a clever man to be admired, there is so much to be gained from this book where I've only mentioned one of the cases he refers to in this book.

I really think you would benefit from reading this book.

V C Ram's on YouTube and always a very interesting listen any time. 

Good and kind regards Alan, ippy

[Stranger]

You are implying that everything we do, think or say is just driven by inevitable chain reactions.  If this were true, what on earth is the point of posting on a forum such as this?

To argue for a point of view and maybe change people's minds, maybe even to have one's own mind changed by other ideas. None of that is ruled out by determinism.

This would imply a pointless, meaningless existence over which we have no control...

Of course we have control of it. You seem totally unable to grasp the difference between our internal thought processes being deterministic and somehow having the external world dictate our actions against our will.

As I pointed out before, there is very little practical difference between what you want to be true and determinism. You admit that our choices are influenced by our nature, nurture, and experience acting on the circumstances - you are just insisting on a little bit of pointless, contradictory magic that makes them not fully determined but not random either - which is impossible.

The gifts of self awareness and free will are essentially what makes us human.

Yes - but your notion of what "free will" means is logically impossible and hence utterly pointless.

[Stranger]

What falsifies the idea of self awareness being an emergent property is the simple logic that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions.

You keep talking about this logic but you never actually post it. What logic?

Awareness is not defined by reactions nor can it be a property of reactions alone.  Awareness is perception of reactions, and any attempt to define it in terms of reactions alone is built on similar thinking to the alchemists of old.

This is unjustified assertion, not logic.

[SusanDoris]

AB

For the umpteenth time you have used the word' inevitable'. You use it in a way that implies a kind of robotish, zombie-ish behaviour on the part of all of us. You seem to think you are scoring some sort of point when you do use it.
Yes, all that our brains and bodies do is inevitable, but not in the way in which you seem to  interpret it.
I hasten to emphasise that by saying this I am not in any way endorsing any of your it's-magic-innit ideas.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

What “logic”? You have none.

No, it is you that does not have the logic to support your idea of conscious awareness emerging from material reactions alone.  You claim that all the evidence points to this, but you ignore the evidence of your own existence - evidence of your own ability to make conscious choices, to create, to manipulate, to perceive meaning and purpose in things.  You comprise far more than material reactions can ever define.  Emergent properties are nothing more than an externally observed complexity or functionality to which we give a label.  Internally they are just individual material elements reacting to previous events.  Nothing more.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No, it is you that does not have the logic to support your idea of conscious awareness emerging from material reactions alone.

It’s not “me it’s people working in the field (like neuroscientists), but if you think all their findings and conclusions are wrong let’s see what counter-arguments and evidence you have then…

You claim that all the evidence points to this, but you ignore the evidence of your own existence - evidence of your own ability to make conscious choices, to create, to manipulate, to perceive meaning and purpose in things.

And he falls at the first hurdle. I don’t ignore that at all – and nor does anyone else. Your problem here though is that you’ve fallen straight back into the Cartesian dualism of thinking the “you” you refer to as in some entirely unexplained way being a separate entity from the emergent property of mind. It isn’t – and no serious thinker has though otherwise for over 200 years now. Why not? Because there’s no logical need for it, and because there’s no evidence for it. 

You comprise far more than material reactions can ever define.  Emergent properties are nothing more than an externally observed complexity or functionality to which we give a label.  Internally they are just individual material elements reacting to previous events.  Nothing more.

And he finishes with the same drivel – utterly un-reasoned and un-evidenced assertions – as always. Are you just not reading a single word that’s said here, or are you putting your fingers in your ears so as to pretend that it’s not falsifying you? With self awareness there’s no separate “we”, no independent “perceiver”, no magic little man at the controls with neither logic nor evidence to support such a conjecture.

That you lack the with or the knowledge to understand where you consistently go wrong is sad, but you cannot expect others to follow in your mistakes. Sorry, but you’re just flat wrong here and that’s all there it to it.

[Stranger]

No, it is you that does not have the logic to support your idea of conscious awareness emerging from material reactions alone.

That is a conclusion based on the evidence.

You claim that all the evidence points to this, but you ignore the evidence of your own existence - evidence of your own ability to make conscious choices, to create, to manipulate, to perceive meaning and purpose in things.

This is just untrue. Nobody is ignoring the evidence of our own experience. It is exactly that which every single idea about consciousness is trying to explain and which science is investigating. It is just dishonest of you to claim that people are not taking it into account. What they are not accepting is your baseless assertion that it can't possibly be physical.

There is no evidence for anything apart from the physical brain being involved.

[Alan Burns]

AB

For the umpteenth time you have used the word' inevitable'. You use it in a way that implies a kind of robotish, zombie-ish behaviour on the part of all of us. You seem to think you are scoring some sort of point when you do use it.
Yes, all that our brains and bodies do is inevitable, but not in the way in which you seem to  interpret it.
I hasten to emphasise that by saying this I am not in any way endorsing any of your it's-magic-innit ideas.

There can be no half measures in this, Susan.  We are either entirely under the control of physically defined reactions to previous events - hence robotish zombie-ish behaviour as you correctly surmise, or there is something non physical involved, such as the conscious will of the human soul, which enables the freedom we all enjoy.

[torridon]

There can be no half measures in this, Susan.  We are either entirely under the control of physically defined reactions to previous events - hence robotish zombie-ish behaviour as you correctly surmise, or there is something non physical involved, such as the conscious will of the human soul, which enables the freedom we all enjoy.

and all that is, is unevidenced make-believe that has no explanatory value.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So many mistakes in so few words…

We are either entirely under the control of…

Mistake 1: there’s no “we” to be “under the control” of anything. “We” are the phenomenon of unfathomably long and complex chains of cause and effect.

of physically defined reactions to previous events

Mistake 2: it’s not that they are “physically defined”, just that they’re physical. If you want to posit a non-physical (other than the “it’s magic” that’s all you have so far) then you need to define it, to make an argument for it, and to demonstrate it.

…robotish zombie-ish behaviour as you correctly surmise

Mistake 3: fallacy of pejorative language, and an argumentum ad consequentiam to boot. You may choose to think of it in these terms, but doing so tells you nothing about the facts of the matter.

…or there is something non physical involved, such as the conscious will of the human soul, which enables the freedom we all enjoy

Mistake 4: error of incomprehensibility. If you think there’s something called a “soul” then you have all your work ahead of you finally to explain in comprehensible terms what you mean by it, to explain in logically cogent terms why you think it exists, and to provide a method to demonstrate your assertion.

So far you’ve done none of these things. Rather you’ve made a childish assertion, ignored all the argument and evidence that falsifies it, and repeated the assertion over and over again in the hope presumably that those who know it to be a crock will go away.

[Alan Burns]

Mistake 1: there’s no “we” to be “under the control” of anything. “We” are the phenomenon of unfathomably long and complex chains of cause and effect.

You seem to be deluded by what can be achieved by unguided, purposeless chains of cause and effect

Mistake 2: it’s not that they are “physically defined”, just that they’re physical. If you want to posit a non-physical (other than the “it’s magic” that’s all you have so far) then you need to define it, to make an argument for it, and to demonstrate it.

Ok - call it physical if you like, but is still amounts to unguided, purposeless chains of cause and effect.

Mistake 3: fallacy of pejorative language, and an argumentum ad consequentiam to boot. You may choose to think of it in these terms, but doing so tells you nothing about the facts of the matter.

I stand by what I said - you can choose to disagree if you like, by exercising your God given freedom.  A freedom which can't be derived from endless chains of physical cause and effect.

Mistake 4: error of incomprehensibility. If you think there’s something called a “soul” then you have all your work ahead of you finally to explain in cogent terms what you mean by it, to explain why you think it it exists, and to provide a method to demonstrate your assertion.

Soul explains far more than physical determinism will ever do.

So far you’ve done none of these things. Rather you’ve made a childish assertion, ignored all the argument and evidence that falsifies it, and repeated the process over and over again in the hope presumably that those who know it to be a crock will go away.

My arguments will stand the test of time.  Will yours?

[floo]

You seem to be deluded by what can be achieved by unguided, purposeless chains of cause and effectOk - call it physical if you like, but is still amounts to unguided, purposeless chains of cause and effect.I stand by what I said - you can choose to disagree if you like, by exercising your God given freedom.Soul explains far more than physical determinism will ever do.My arguments will stand the test of time.  Will yours?

I doubt it, even some other Christians don't see it your way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to be deluded by what can be achieved by unguided, purposeless chains of cause and effect

I hear the assertion. What makes you think following all the available evidence to its conclusion is "delusional" exactly?

I don’t suppose you’ll bother even trying to answer as you’ve ignored the same question countless times already but, in the unlikely event that you do, could you at least try to do so without collapsing immediately into one or several logical fallacies?

Ok - call it physical if you like, but is still amounts to unguided, purposeless chains of cause and effect.

And you think that to be an argument against the facts of the matter how exactly?

I stand by what I said - you can choose to disagree if you like, by exercising your God given freedom.

I know you do. The problem though in this case is that what you "stand by" is two fundamental failures in logic – the fallacy of pejorative language and the argumentum ad consequentiam.

Making these mistakes once (or even a few times) makes you look innocently wrong. Repeating them over and over again as you do though puts you somewhere between willfully obtuse and dishonest. Why do you do that?

Soul explains far more than physical determinism will ever do.

That’s just stupid, or worse. “Soul” explains nothing at all and nor can it until you finally manage to do the things I outlined in my last Reply – define it coherently, tell us why it exists cogently, and provide a method to test the claim reliably. So far though you've done none of these things so all you have is the white noise of “it’s magic”.

My arguments will stand the test of time.  Will yours?

First, you don’t have any arguments – just meaningless assertions.

Second, even if we privilege your assertions with the term “arguments” they failed “the test of time” over 200 years ago when more robust thinking and reasoning emerged than the vapid superstitions to which you cling as a man clings to a concrete lifebelt.

Third, yes in all probability mine will. Why? Because they’ve done so for centuries, and – so far at least – those who would disagree with them have never yet managed to construct an argument or to produce evidence that would falsify them.

That’s the point. As Ricky Gervais noted recently, if all the “holy” texts in the world were to disappear tomorrow none of them would reappear centuries hence. On the other hand, if all the scientific work we have disappeared then eventually we’d get it back as the same reasoning, the same evidence gathering, the same experiments etc led inexorably to the same conclusions.

Does that not bother you at all?

Really, nothing?

[floo]

AB,

I hear the assertion. What makes you think following all the available evidence to its conclusion is "delusional" exactly?

I don’t suppose you’ll bother even trying to answer as you’ve ignored the same question countless times already but, in the unlikely even that you do, could you at least try to do so without collapsing immediately into one or several logical fallacies?

And you think that to be an argument against the facts of the matter how exactly?

I know you do. The problem though in this case is that what you "stand by" is two fundamental failures in logic – the fallacy of pejorative language and the argumentum as consequentiam.

Making these mistakes once (or even a few times) makes you look innocently wrong. Repeating them over and over again as you do though puts you somewhere between willfully obtuse and dishonest. Why do you do that?

That’s just stupid, or worse. “Soul” explains nothing at all and nor can it until you finally manage to do the things I outlined in my last Reply – define it coherently, tell us why it exists cogently, and provide a method to test the claim. So far though, all you have is the white noise of “it’s magic”.

First, you don’t have any arguments – just meaningless assertions.

Second, even if we privilege your assertions with the term “arguments” they failed “the test of time” over 200 years ago when more robust thinking and reasoning emerged than the vapid superstitions to which you cling as a man clings to a concrete lifebelt.

Third, yes in all probability mine will. Why? Because they’ve done so for centuries, and – so far at least – those who would disagree wit them have never yet managed to construct an argument or to produce evidence that would falsify them.

That’s the point. As Ricky Gervais noted recently, if all the “holy” texts in the world were to disappear tomorrow none of them would reappear centuries hence. On the other hand, if all the scientific work we have disappeared then eventually we’d get it back as the same reasoning, the same evidence gathering, the same experiments, the same testing etc led inexorably to the same conclusions.

Does that not bother you at all?

Really, nothing?

Ah but god would ensure they were replaced!

[Gordon]

Soul explains far more than physical determinism will ever do.My arguments will stand the test of time.  Will yours?

'Soul' explains nothing, Alan, since you can't explain 'souls': we get that the idea of 'souls' appeals to you, but we also get that you offer no good reasons to take your 'souls' claim seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That’s the point. As Ricky Gervais noted recently, if all the “holy” texts in the world were to disappear tomorrow none of them would reappear centuries hence.

This is so ridiculous you must be putting it in for provocation or to conjur me up..
Firstly, you seem to be claiming prophetic powers, secondly the notion is in itself delusional and wishful thinking, as if all the copies of the worlds best selling book and the entirety of the largest belief system in the world are going to disappear.
It also casts the ''comedian'' Ricky Gervais as either an expert futurologist or a prophet.

What arrant Cock Hillside......Gervais must have been feeling a little funny when he uttered this.