Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to be under the illusion that increased physical complexity can somehow generate conscious self awareness.  But without any verifiable mechanism to show that conscious self awareness can be defined purely by physical material properties, this is a gross assumption.

You’ve packed several mistakes into relatively few words there, and (again) you’ve just ignored the “why” question you were asked.

First, you can’t just call something an “illusion” without bothering to explain why you think it’s an illusion.

Second, you’re using “physical” there as a sort of Trojan horse (ie, to imply "consciousness isn't physical, therefore it can't be physical brains that are doing it"). Emergence though concerns complex properties that arise from simpler physical components.

Third, you’ve shifted the burden of proof. You’re the one who asserts that it’s “physically impossible” for any computational object, however complex, to be self-aware. It’s your job therefore to explain why you think that’s physically impossible. Simply pointing to much, much simpler machines and telling us that they can’t think doesn’t even begin to do that.

Fourth, that “without any verifiable mechanism” is an argument from personal incredulity – one of the various logical fallacies into which you regularly collapse. What we actually know is that brains are vastly more complex than any computer we have so far. We also know that emergence is a phenomenon we see pretty much everywhere in nature. We also know that there’s no obvious barrier to consciousness being an emergent property, albeit one that relies on highly complex computational equipment called brains. We also know that an alternative conjecture that’s neither determined nor random is logically incoherent. We also know that there’s no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of an entity called “soul” independent of mind that’s pulling the levers.

The only sensible conclusion pending further and better information therefore is that self-aware brains are the more likely explanation for consciousness than “souls”. That’s not a “gross” assumption – it’s a reasoned one

You on the other hand insist apparently just as a matter of personal faith that it’s the other way around. Absent any supporting reasoning or evidence, that’s the "gross assumption" here.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’ve packed several mistakes into relatively few words there, and (again) you’ve just ignored the “why” question you were asked.

First, you can’t just call something an “illusion” without bothering to explain why you think it’s an illusion.

Second, you’re using “physical” there as a sort of Trojan horse (ie, to imply "consciousness isn't physical, therefore it can't be physical brains that are doing it"). Emergence though concerns complex properties that arise from simpler physical components.

Third, you’ve shifted the burden of proof. You’re the one who asserts that it’s “physically impossible” for any computational object, however complex, to be self-aware. It’s your job therefore to explain why you think that’s physically impossible. Simply pointing to much, much simpler machines and telling us that they can’t think doesn’t even begin to do that.

Fourth, that “without any verifiable mechanism” is an argument from personal incredulity – one of the various logical fallacies into which you regularly collapse. What we actually know is that brains are vastly more complex than any computer we have so far. We also know that emergence is a phenomenon we see pretty much everywhere in nature. We also know that there’s no obvious barrier to consciousness being an emergent property, albeit one that relies on highly complex computational equipment called brains. We also know that an alternative conjecture that’s neither determined nor random is logically incoherent. We also know that there’s no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of an entity called “soul” independent of mind that’s pulling the levers.

The only sensible conclusion pending further and better information therefore is that self-aware brains are the more likely explanation for consciousness than “souls”. That’s not a “gross” assumption – it’s a reasoned one

You on the other hand insist apparently just as a matter of personal faith that it’s the other way around. Absent any supporting reasoning or evidence, that’s the "gross assumption" here.     

But emergent properties are nothing more than some externally perceived functionality or pattern derived from basic elements reacting with each other in accordance with natural laws.  Conscious perception cannot be categorised purely as an externally perceived function, because it is an internal property beyond human understanding or definition.  To try to define conscious perception in terms of material properties alone is the impossible task - it comprises far more than anything which can be perceived from outside observation.  This is not personal incredulity, it is a logically deduced fact.  There is more to life than the physical properties of deterministically controlled material elements.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But emergent properties are nothing more than some externally perceived functionality or pattern derived from basic elements reacting with each other in accordance with natural laws.

You (again) betray your ignorance of emergence there. Ant behaviour (for example) would still be ant behaviour whether or not it was “externally perceived”. You're terribly confused about this.   

Conscious perception cannot be categorised purely as an externally perceived function…

That’s called the fallacy of the straw man. “Conscious perception” is still conscious perception whether or not there’s anyone to “perceive” it. If you were sent to Mars tomorrow you’d still have it even if there was no-one else there to “perceive” that you have it.

-because it is an internal property beyond human understanding or definition.

That’s called non sequitur fallacy. Your “because” fails because it doesn’t follow from your (failed) premise. Moreover, the “beyond human understanding or definition” is both misleading and a “god of the gaps” (another fallacy). What we actually have is an “understanding or definition” that’s incomplete, but it’s by no means nothing as you imply. Lots of our understandings about lots of things have been incomplete in the past too but no longer are – and the more complete the pictures become the smaller the gaps for people like you to hide gods, souls etc until, eventually, they disappear. In other words, you’re just trying more bad thinking – “OK, so we can’t explain X, therefore I’ll say it’s faith belief Y until we can explain it”.

To try to define conscious perception in terms of material properties alone is the impossible task -…

You’ve had this mistake explained to you already, so why repeat it? Properties are explicable in material terms, only they emerge from the interactions of the physical components of which they consist. That’s why we can explain flocks of birds or waves in the same way even though nothing about a bird or about hydrogen and oxygen atoms have these properties.   

…it comprises far more than anything which can be perceived from outside observation.

The “outside perception” is irrelevant, and again you’re relying on an incomplete “explanation or definition” to insert an answer with no “explanation or definition” of its own of any kind. We don’t have a full explanation yet for gravity – does that allow me to insert my conjecture that it’s invisible pixies with very thin strings holding stuff down therefore? 

It doesn’t does it – yet that rhetorically is exactly what you’re attempting. And that’s very bad thinking.

Of how about a jig-saw with half the pieces missing vs a jig-saw with all the pieces missing. Which one is more likely to give you at better shot at working out what the picture is would you say?

This is not personal incredulity, it is a logically deduced fact.

It’s precisely personal incredulity. You cannot imagine what a complete explanation for consciousness would be, and you rely on that incredulity to insert whatever alternative happens to appeal to you most.

There is more to life than the physical properties of deterministically controlled material elements.

So you assert. If you think there to be a non-material though, why not at least try to make an argument for it rather than just assert it?

Oh, and I see that yet again you’ve ducked the question I keep asking you: on what basis do you make your claim that it’s “physically impossible” for a sufficiently complex computational entity to be self-aware?

Why do you keep doing that? Can you not see the question? Can you not process it? Are you just dishonest?

What?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You (again) betray your ignorance of emergence there. Ant behaviour (for example) would still be ant behaviour whether or not it was “externally perceived”. You're terribly confused about this.   

It is not the ant behaviour that is quoted as an emergent property, but the externally observed result of the ant behaviour, which is the ventilation of the ant hill.

That’s called the fallacy of the straw man. “Conscious perception” is still conscious perception whether or not there’s anyone to “perceive” it. If you were sent to Mars tomorrow you’d still have it even if there was no-one else there to “perceive” that you have it.

Of course - that is why I categorised it as an internal property rather than an externally perceived functionality

That’s called non sequitur fallacy. Your “because” fails because it doesn’t follow from your (failed) premise. Moreover, the “beyond human understanding or definition” is both misleading and a “god of the gaps” (another fallacy). What we actually have is an “understanding or definition” that’s incomplete, but it’s by no means nothing as you imply. Lots of our understandings about lots of things have been incomplete in the past too but no longer are – and the more complete the pictures become the smaller the gaps for people like you to hide gods, souls etc until, eventually, they disappear. In other words, you’re just trying more bad thinking – “OK, so we can’t explain X, therefore I’ll say it’s faith belief Y until we can explain it”.

The reason it is beyond understanding is simply because it is impossible to define as a property of deterministically controlled material elements.  Put simply, material elements react - they do not perceive.

You’ve had this mistake explained to you already, so why repeat it? Properties are explicable in material terms, only they emerge from the interactions of the physical components of which they consist. That’s why we can explain flocks of birds or waves in the same way even though nothing about a bird or about hydrogen and oxygen atoms have these properties.   

As previously explained - conscious awareness is an internal property, not an externally observed emerging pattern or functionality.

The “outside perception” is irrelevant, and again you’re relying on an incomplete “explanation or definition” to insert an answer with no “explanation or definition” of its own of any kind. We don’t have a full explanation yet for gravity – does that allow me to insert my conjecture that it’s invisible pixies with very thin strings holding stuff down therefore? 

We know gravity exists because of what it does, and we do not know how it does it, so we call it gravity, or  "that phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward one another"
Similarly we know the soul exists because of what it does, and we do not know how it does it, so we call it a soul, or "that which consciously perceives and implements acts of conscious will".

Or how about a jig-saw with half the pieces missing vs a jig-saw with all the pieces missing. Which one is more likely to give you at better shot at working out what the picture is would you say?

Our scientific knowledge provides some pieces of the jig saw of reality, but we should not make the mistake of presuming to know the nature and source of the missing pieces, or indeed the sheer quantity of missing pieces.  I do know that reality must comprise much more than we currently know through scientific knowledge, and we may never see the big picture via science alone.

It’s precisely personal incredulity. You cannot imagine what a complete explanation for consciousness would be, and you rely on that incredulity to insert whatever alternative happens to appeal to you most.

But I can logically deduce that conscious awareness is not merely a material property.

So you assert. If you think there to be a non-material though, why not at least try to make an argument for it rather than just assert it?

I have put forward many logical arguments.

Oh, and I see that yet again you’ve ducked the question I keep asking you: on what basis do you make your claim that it’s “physically impossible” for a sufficiently complex computational entity to be self-aware?

See above.

[ippy]

It is not the ant behaviour that is quoted as an emergent property, but the externally observed result of the ant behaviour, which is the ventilation of the ant hill.Of course - that is why I categorised it as an internal property rather than an externally perceived functionalityThe reason it is beyond understanding is simply because it is impossible to define as a property of deterministically controlled material elements.  Put simply, material elements react - they do not perceive.As previously explained - conscious awareness is an internal property, not an externally observed emerging pattern or functionality.We know gravity exists because of what it does, and we do not know how it does it, so we call it gravity, or  "that phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward one another"
Similarly we know the soul exists because of what it does, and we do not know how it does it, so we call it a soul, or "that which consciously perceives and implements acts of conscious will".Our scientific knowledge provides some pieces of the jig saw of reality, but we should not make the mistake of presuming to know the nature and source of the missing pieces, or indeed the sheer quantity of missing pieces.  I do know that reality must comprise much more than we currently know through scientific knowledge, and we may never see the big picture via science alone.
But I can logically deduce that conscious awareness is not merely a material property.I have put forward many logical arguments.See above.

Alan, you're performing like a notoriously unlucky soldier working on a comprehensive mine clearance project, I would guess likely with a similar outcome.

My commiserations to you Alan, ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not the ant behaviour that is quoted as an emergent property, but the externally observed result of the ant behaviour, which is the ventilation of the ant hill.

That’s plain daft. You don’t get just to decide arbitrarily that some things exist only in people’s perception (emergent properties) while others (cars and bananas) don’t. A flock of birds is still a flock of birds whether or not there’s someone to look at it. If you want to go full on Bishop Berkeley and tell us that nothing exists outside the models our minds construct (the “brain in a vat” idea) by all means give it a go, but you don’t get to pick and choose what does and what doesn’t exist “out there” when it happens to suit your faith beliefs.   

Of course - that is why I categorised it as an internal property rather than an externally perceived functionality

It might be an “internal property” as you put it, but it doesn’t cease to exist when there’s no-one to look at it - which was your notion about why consciousness can’t be an emergent property.

The reason it is beyond understanding is simply because it is impossible to define as a property of deterministically controlled material elements.

Why are you avoiding again? It’s not “impossible to explain” as you put it – it’s just impossible to explain fully. As are other phenomena like gravity. As were many other phenomena that were once impossible to explain but now can be, like thunder. And even if something is currently “beyond understanding” all that gives you is a “don’t know” for the missing bits – nothing more, nothing less. If you want to fill the gap with an explanation though, then that explanation must itself be “understood and defined” if you’re not to be seen to be indulging in crude special pleading.

If you really want to go there though, by all means set out your “understanding and definition” of “god”, “soul” etc so the rest of us can examine these claims and assertions. 

Put simply, material elements react - they do not perceive.

Put even more simply, that’s just your repeated empty assertion. So far at least you’ve offered no argument at all to demonstrate it – let alone an argument for why you think self-awareness is “physically impossible” as you put it.

Why not?

As previously explained - conscious awareness is an internal property, not an externally observed emerging pattern or functionality.

You’ve explained nothing. “Conscious awareness” matches the characteristics of any other emergent property – individually “stupid” components (birds, neurons etc) interacting, (via senses, synapses etc) to produce emergent properties (flocking, consciousness etc) with no centralised control necessary. Whether consciousness is an internal state of mind and flocking birds are externally “out there” makes no difference at all to that basic paradigm. It’s still aligned to the characteristics of emergence.

We know gravity exists because of what it does, and we do not know how it does it, so we call it gravity, or  "that phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward one another"

Now type that again only swap “consciousness” for “gravity”. We know a lot about gravity, but the “understanding and definition” as you put it is incomplete. Exactly the same is true of consciousness. So what?   

Similarly we know the soul exists because of what it does, and we do not know how it does it, so we call it a soul, or "that which consciously perceives and implements acts of conscious will".

Utter bollocks. There’s no “similarly” about that at all. “Soul” is just a theological term for which there no “understanding and definition” at all, no logically cogent rationale, no evidence, no anything to suggest that it exists. It’s a place marker for “here’s some stuff we can’t explain, at least not yet so we’ll make up a name for the knowledge gap and call it an explanation”. It’s just desperately, desperately bad thinking.       

Our scientific knowledge provides some pieces of the jig saw of reality, but we should not make the mistake of presuming to know the nature and source of the missing pieces, or indeed the sheer quantity of missing pieces.  I do know that reality must comprise much more than we currently know through scientific knowledge, and we may never see the big picture via science alone.

Which has nothing at all to do with the question, namely: which is more likely to give you a more functionally useful picture – a jig-saw with some pieces or a jig-saw with no pieces? Go ahead, you can answer. A half missing jig-saw is clearly a better option than a completely missing jig-saw right? Right.

So here’s your problem: our understanding of consciousness may well be a half-missing jig-saw, but your conjectures about “soul” etc have all the pieces missing. There’s not one piece. The box is empty. Completely empty. There’s nothing whatever you can tell us about these conjectures that’s coherent or investigable by any known method. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.

Where does that leave you do you think? 
 

But I can logically deduce that conscious awareness is not merely a material property.

Of course you can’t. To do that first you’d have to show even that there’s such a thing as the non-material – something which, so far as I can tell, until now you’ve only ever asserted to be the case. Only then would you be in a position at least (finally) to attempt an argument to show that consciousness occupies that "space".

I have put forward many logical arguments.

That’s flatly untrue and you know it. Every argument you’ve attempted has been illogical, un-reasoned, irrational, fallacious. That’s why when they collapse you fall back on, “but all I know is….” assertion.   
Why are you even pretending otherwise?

See above.

I have. You haven’t even tried to answer it. Here it is again then: on what basis do you make your claim that it’s “physically impossible” for a sufficiently complex computational entity to be self-aware?

Look, if that basis continues to be, “I just assert it because it suits my religious beliefs to do so” then just say so and we can move on. We both know that that’s the case anyway don’t we, so why even bother pretending you have a cogent or even a coherent argument to support you?

Seriously though, why?

[Alan Burns]

Dear Blue,

It is clear that you (and others) will continue to presume that you comprise nothing more than the emergent property of material elements which are entirely controlled by the laws of nature and over which there can be no other form of control.  In which you effectively talk yourself out of existence and just become part of the material continuum of this material universe.

I will continue to rejoice in the truth and knowledge that I am God's creation, made in His own image, with the gifts to perceive and interact with this material universe.

[SusanDoris]

Alan, you're performing like a notoriously unlucky soldier working on a comprehensive mine clearance project, I would guess likely with a similar outcome.

My commiserations to you Alan, ippy

Again you have saved me from replying!! I went to the reply area, read through that stuff from AB, tried a few comments, but gave up!!

ETA: bluehillside I'm sure Synthetic Dave enjoys reading your posts too, and I don't know why AB hasn't metaphorically drowned in the morass of candyfloss syrup, suffocating blanket of woolly waffle with which he surrounds himself!

[ippy]

Dear Blue,

It is clear that you (and others) will continue to presume that you comprise nothing more than the emergent property of material elements which are entirely controlled by the laws of nature and over which there can be no other form of control.  In which you effectively talk yourself out of existence and just become part of the material continuum of this material universe.

I will continue to rejoice in the truth and knowledge that I am God's creation, made in His own image, with the gifts to perceive and interact with this material universe.

"I will continue to rejoice in the truth and knowledge that I am God's creation, made in His own image, with the gifts to perceive and interact with this material universe."

Potty!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is clear that you (and others) will continue to presume that you comprise nothing more than the emergent property of material elements which are entirely controlled by the laws of nature and over which there can be no other form of control.

No-one "presumes" that – your terminology is off, but the basic sense you’re attempting is arrived at by logical deduction, not by “presumption” at all. As that’s where the logic and evidence leads, what choice is there? By contrast, you presume hugely beyond where logic and evidence can take you (because you have neither). That’s your problem.     

In which you effectively talk yourself out of existence and just become part of the material continuum of this material universe.

That’s another non sequitur. “The material continuum of this material universe” is in existence, not out of it. You’re actually reifying your non-reasoned speculations and conjectures about a supposed non-material and then accusing me of not reasoning my way into it.

Well yes, and for good reason: it’s just an asserted personal faith belief you happen to hold, and nothing more. 

I will continue to rejoice in the truth and knowledge that I am God's creation, made in His own image, with the gifts to perceive and interact with this material universe.

That’s not “the” truth at all – it’s just your truth. What’s ironic here (and so will be lost on you) is that I just said, “That’s flatly untrue and you know it. Every argument you’ve attempted has been illogical, un-reasoned, irrational, fallacious. That’s why when they collapse you fall back on, “but all I know is….” assertion”” – which exactly what you’ve just done.

I think now we’re at the position of both knowing you have no argument to support your assertion that it’s “physically impossible” for a computational entity, no matter how complex, to be self-aware. It’s no surprise, but your continued silence on and avoidance of the problem does you no credit.

[SusanDoris]

Note: I have edited my previous post!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just musing on AB’s collapse into reified assertion now his attempt at argument has been undone again. AB’s mind is not a place I’d like to be, and he’s not alone in his behaviour but he does seem to be a type: absolute certainty about something that thinks it must be supported by reason and evidence finds out the hard way that it isn’t, then rather than address the problem resorts to faith-based assertions of “the” truth etc. Such people sometimes call themselves on mbs “Sword” of this, “Shield” of that, “Grace” of something else etc too as a sort of romanticised disingenuousness.

Well, OK I guess if that’s your thing but it seems to me to come at a high price, namely a “meh” from anyone listening to it. Why? Because evidentially anyone’s faith-based assertions about anything are precisely as (in)valid as anyone else’s faith-based assertions about anything else, and if you want to evangelise – as that’s all AB seems to be interested in doing – then you’ve immediately exited yourself thereby from the discussion.

Seems an odd (and basically dishonest) tactic to me, but there you go I guess.

[ippy]

As I've been trying to convey to Alan, if anyone goes to the very root of all his protestations, that he thinks are arguments, they can all be compared to an egg timer where in the narrowest part of the glass every grain of sand is being firmly held back by an over large assertion that's preventing the free flow of sand.

Nothing wrong with holding these views it's the passing these views on to innocent ears that does bother me.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy

[Alan Burns]

Just musing on AB’s collapse into reified assertion now his attempt at argument has been undone again. AB’s mind is not a place I’d like to be, and he’s not alone in his behaviour but he does seem to be a type: absolute certainty about something that thinks it must be supported by reason and evidence finds out the hard way that it isn’t, then rather than address the problem resorts to faith-based assertions of “the” truth etc. Such people sometimes call themselves on mbs “Sword” of this, “Shield” of that, “Grace” of something else etc too as a sort of romanticised disingenuousness.

Well, OK I guess if that’s your thing but it seems to me to come at a high price, namely a “meh” from anyone listening to it. Why? Because evidentially anyone’s faith-based assertions about anything are precisely as (in)valid as anyone else’s faith-based assertions about anything else, and if you want to evangelise – as that’s all AB seems to be interested in doing – then you’ve immediately exited yourself thereby from the discussion.

Seems an odd (and basically dishonest) tactic to me, but there you go I guess.

So I continue to be accused of assertion, personal incredulity and unevidenced absolute certainty.  If I am just a blob of material under the deterministic control of natural laws, what precisely is the cause of these assertions, and what is personal about my incredulity?  How on earth can a blob of deterministically controlled physical matter express the concept of absolute certainty?  What is it within me which is guilty of all this?  Please tell me.

[Gordon]

So I continue to be accused of assertion, personal incredulity and unevidenced absolute certainty.  If I am just a blob of material under the deterministic control of natural laws, what precisely is the cause of these assertions, and what is personal about my incredulity?  How on earth can a blob of deterministically controlled physical matter express the concept of absolute certainty?  What is it within me which is guilty of all this?  Please tell me.

It's just your biology doing what it does, Alan. Blobs of the human variety have the biological capacity to think, including abstractly, though not all human blobs are equally good thinkers (or, say, runners) and can make mistakes - in your case these are evident in the logical fallacies you fall into.

[Maeght]

So I continue to be accused of assertion, personal incredulity and unevidenced absolute certainty.  If I am just a blob of material under the deterministic control of natural laws, what precisely is the cause of these assertions, and what is personal about my incredulity?  How on earth can a blob of deterministically controlled physical matter express the concept of absolute certainty?  What is it within me which is guilty of all this?  Please tell me.

You have asked that question many times and it has been answered many times. Why do you keep asking the same questions? You may not accept the answers but to keep posting the same questions is irritating and not helpful.

[torridon]

So I continue to be accused of assertion, personal incredulity and unevidenced absolute certainty.  If I am just a blob of material under the deterministic control of natural laws, what precisely is the cause of these assertions, and what is personal about my incredulity?  How on earth can a blob of deterministically controlled physical matter express the concept of absolute certainty?  What is it within me which is guilty of all this?  Please tell me.

Well, an antelope is also just a 'blob of material' so what is it within the antelope that has visual experience, and what is it within the antelope that feels terror at being hunted by a predator ? We know you like to think humans are special, categorically different from all other species at a fundamental level, but it doesn't wash.  That is just your prejudice and incredulity in operation combining to deny the richness of inner sentience to all other life forms apart from human ones and the fruits of such blind anthropic partisanship are an ecological catastrophe that we are visiting on the rest of life on this planet.  To understand what we are, we have to see where we have come from, to understand that our real provenance is rooted just as firmly within the natural world as any other creature.  We are not unfortunate beings shackled and constrained by nature, we are nature, we are expressions of it.

[Rhiannon]

Well put, torridon. Our animal nature is actually something to celebrate. We should revel in our connection to nature, to the earth, and to the amazing creatures that we share it with. We should nurture it because of our connection, because we need it far more than it needs us. Alan doctrine of disconnection is dangerous; it leads to the slaughter of pregnant whales, to the destruction of rainforests and ancient forests, to plastic pollution, to climate change. And the only solution that Alan can offer for this folly is seeking out his god and asking for mercy.

Still, in the meantime he makes sure Alan doesn’t get a parking ticket.

[Bramble]

Perhaps Alan or someone else could try to explain exactly what the benefits are of this obsession with elevating humans and downgrading the rest of the natural world such that we become the only 'created' thing that really matters and then find ourselves having to suck up to an imaginary friend because we no longer feel any real connection to the world in which we actually live. As far as I can see it leads only to isolation, loneliness and alienation where the only hope of 'salvation' comes from worshipping ones own mental fantasies and projections. There could hardly be a more malignant psychological prison where all sense of belonging is extinguished and the only 'other' to which one can relate is just a facet of ones own ego. Why would anyone choose to construct such a dwelling? Surely this is the true meaning of hell, with madness as both its cause and its effect.

[SusanDoris]

I think Rhiannon's point about AB's thinking being a dangerous one for life and the planet we're on is a very important one. I hope he will respond to this point, but probably the high, invisible barrier with which he surrounds himself  will prevent this.

[wigginhall]

Good stuff, above posts.   The danger of our separation from nature is obvious now, and then they preach about the sanctity of human life, pass the sick bowl.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So I continue to be accused of assertion, personal incredulity and unevidenced absolute certainty.

Yes, and rightly so for the reasons that have been explained to you that you cannot rebut. Just to be clear by the way, the fact of the arguments you thought supported your assertions “god”, “soul” etc being swept away does not of itself mean that these things don’t exist. It could be that, just as a matter of dumb luck, they exist after all (just as leprechauns could). What it does mean though is that all you have left for your evangelising is expressions of personal faith – which is fine so far as it goes (ie, it works for you), but is also epistemically worthless for anyone else. 

If I am just a blob of material under the deterministic control of natural laws, what precisely is the cause of these assertions, and what is personal about my incredulity?  How on earth can a blob of deterministically controlled physical matter express the concept of absolute certainty?  What is it within me which is guilty of all this?  Please tell me.

So let’s unpack that:

1. Even if the answer was, “I have no idea” (which it isn’t by the way - see 2 below) what do you think that would tell you about your conjectures “god”, “soul” etc? That’s right – absolutely nothing. Why not? For the same reason a Norseman receiving the same answer to “what’s thunder?” would still know absolutely nothing about his conjecture “Thor”. This is the personal incredulity mistake you keep making – each time you ask in essence “what is me then?” you’re just telling us that you cannot imagine the answer, and you think that somehow opens the door to the “explanations” you prefer. It does no such thing though – a “don’t know” is just a “don’t know”. If you wanted to make an argument for “god” etc then you’d still have all your work ahead of you, for the same reason the Viking would have al his work ahead of him to make an argument for Thor.

Can you now see why people here get so frustrated when you demand over and again, “well explain X then” as if that has any relevance at all to the validity of you faith beliefs? Some of us patiently explain to you the argument form personal incredulity fallacy you’re attempting, only for you to do it again. And again. And again. Only when you abandon it though will you have moved at least one step toward getting rid of some of your bad thinking.

2. As to the “how on earth” etc question, it’s conceptually at least very simple – consciousness itself may function as a process of unfathomably long and complex chains of cause and effect, but when you’re inside it it just feels very different. Our perception is that we’re the captain of our ship, the master of our fate etc. And for most practical purposes, we are - that’s why a court of law for example will apportion blame for a criminal act and there’s no defence of “but it’s all cause and effect so who is this “me” you're punishing?” When you dig a little deeper though you’ll see that perception and reality often conflict – plainly so in fact because a non-determinative model would be random (ie, chaotic), which it clearly isn’t.

This incidentally is why you fall apart with your “consciousness isn’t understood or defined, therefore it can’t be natural” error. It fails on two counts: first, it’s not true. A great deal is known about consciousness from the world of neuroscience in particular, so the correct construction should be that consciousness isn’t fully understood, and indeed maybe it never will be (the “butter knife” problem – ie, you can’t cut butter with a knife made of butter). That doesn’t for a moment though mean that we don’t know enough about it to conclude provisionally at least that it’s a naturalistic phenomenon, substantially aligned to the process of emergence we see everywhere in nature. We don’t for example say, “gravity is only partially understood, therefore invisible pixies” and nor by the same reasoning is there a justification to treat consciousness any differently; second, it’s a repeat of the mistake I explained to you at Point 1. Even if the answer to “how do we understand consciousness?” was, “we have no understanding of it at all. Zip. Zilch. The square root of bugger all. Nothing” That would take you not even one tiny step toward, “it must be non-natural then”, for exactly the same reason the same answer about thunder would give you no grounds whatever to reason that thunder must be non-natural too.

In short, your argument is wrong in its facts (because we do know a lot about consciousness, and that tells us a great deal about its likely naturalistic character) and it’s wrong in its reasoning (because even a “don’t know” wouldn’t for one moment imply the supernatural).         

I really don’t know if any of this is sinking in, but could you at least acknowledge that the arguments you attempt are failed ones and so not just repeat them again and again? Who knows, maybe you do have an argument for “god” in your locker that isn’t hopeless and, if you do, this exchange will have done you a favour because you can now sweep away the bad arguments and focus instead on your good one.

If though the rhetorical cupboard is now bare, then say so. Just say, “OK maybe I don’t have reason or evidence to justify my beliefs but I choose to believe them anyway as a matter of personal faith” and that’s fine. It works for you, and that’s no-one’s business but your own. What it might do too though is make you a little more circumspect about reifying those beliefs as facts, especially if you’re tempted again to do so around young people.               

[Alan Burns]

Well put, torridon. Our animal nature is actually something to celebrate. We should revel in our connection to nature, to the earth, and to the amazing creatures that we share it with. We should nurture it because of our connection, because we need it far more than it needs us. Alan doctrine of disconnection is dangerous; it leads to the slaughter of pregnant whales, to the destruction of rainforests and ancient forests, to plastic pollution, to climate change. And the only solution that Alan can offer for this folly is seeking out his god and asking for mercy.

You have got me totally wrong in this Rhi.  We have a duty to appreciate and respect all of God's wonderful creation.  Our faith should be a motivation to help nurture the life and wonders of this planet.

[Alan Burns]

You have asked that question many times and it has been answered many times. Why do you keep asking the same questions? You may not accept the answers but to keep posting the same questions is irritating and not helpful.

It is irritating for me too to have to endure personal accusations of various nature, and also be told that I am entirely driven by physically deterministic events with no free will of my own.

[Alan Burns]

Well, an antelope is also just a 'blob of material' so what is it within the antelope that has visual experience, and what is it within the antelope that feels terror at being hunted by a predator ? We know you like to think humans are special, categorically different from all other species at a fundamental level, but it doesn't wash.  That is just your prejudice and incredulity in operation combining to deny the richness of inner sentience to all other life forms apart from human ones and the fruits of such blind anthropic partisanship are an ecological catastrophe that we are visiting on the rest of life on this planet.  To understand what we are, we have to see where we have come from, to understand that our real provenance is rooted just as firmly within the natural world as any other creature.  We are not unfortunate beings shackled and constrained by nature, we are nature, we are expressions of it.

Humans and other animals are all part of God's creation and as such I totally agree that we all have the same roots and share many similarities.  But the fundamental and obvious difference is that humans have been given the gift of consciously driven free will.  I know you are in denial over this and it is a great shame that you and others do not fully appreciate the nature of this amazing gift.  A gift which will ultimately transcend the death of our physical bodies.