Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

For which I take full responsibility, because "I" have the power to consciously choose my words, and "smileys".

You assert.

[torridon]

How can that be? The mind has to work on something. Mind creates illusions on what? That 'something' is what we call the Self or Consciousness, to use a current word.  Even when the mind ceases to exist, that something exists. In sleep, in dream, even in coma.

That's not correct, as far as I understand,we do continue to have low level consciousness during sleep (our ancestors would have had to be able to wake up quickly if they started to fall out of the tree that they were nesting in) but this is not the case in coma or during general anaesthetic where there is no level of conscious mind at all.  We can tell this is true by the fact that when waking up from sleep, we do have a vague sense of time having passed whilst asleep.  Not so when you emerge from coma.  You might have been in coma for years but there is no sense of time having elapsed during the period of unconsciousness. In coma, complex phenomenological constructs like 'Self' cease to exist althogether.

[torridon]

I said physical determinism, which is entirely controlled by natural laws of science acting upon material elements - hence no control, just pre defined physical reactions.

No such thing as physical determinism. You should know this by now, Stranger alone must have explained this to you a hundred times.  Determinism is a principle of philosophy or logic

[Alan Burns]

You assert.

And I ask again, what precisely is it that can consciously invoke this assertion I am personally accused of?  Or do you maintain that it is all just inevitable, physically induced reactions in the subconscious brain over which I can claim no personal responsibility?  If the latter, then what is the point of accusing me if I have no personal control over these alleged assertions?

[Sriram]

That's not correct, as far as I understand,we do continue to have low level consciousness during sleep (our ancestors would have had to be able to wake up quickly if they started to fall out of the tree that they were nesting in) but this is not the case in coma or during general anaesthetic where there is no level of conscious mind at all.  We can tell this is true by the fact that when waking up from sleep, we do have a vague sense of time having passed whilst asleep.  Not so when you emerge from coma.  You might have been in coma for years but there is no sense of time having elapsed during the period of unconsciousness. In coma, complex phenomenological constructs like 'Self' cease to exist althogether.

You are confusing Consciousness with conscious awareness. The unconscious mind does lots of things that we are not aware of, but it is still part of consciousness.

Conscious awareness is built up during our life time and is a part of the mind.  It is the mind that  loses a sense of time and which forgets things.

Think of a one day infant.  It is not aware of anything including its own existence or lapse of time.  Yet it is conscious.  Consciousness exits long before the mind and awareness are built around it. 

[Maeght]

And I ask again, what precisely is it that can consciously invoke this assertion I am personally accused of?  Or do you maintain that it is all just inevitable, physically induced reactions in the subconscious brain over which I can claim no personal responsibility?  If the latter, then what is the point of accusing me if I have no personal control over these alleged assertions?

You know the answer to that Alan. I have answered it many times, as have others.

You assert. Whether you have any freedom to do otherwise is irrelevant to the accuracy of statement. Trying to draw conclusions from the use of language is also irrelevant.

[Gordon]

I said physical determinism, which is entirely controlled by natural laws of science acting upon material elements - hence no control, just pre defined physical reactions.

Nope: you don't get to create classes of determinism just because you don't like the consequences of determinism for your faith, so this is another example of an argumentum ad consequentium.

What is incompatible with this is our ability to invoke conscious choices which have not been determined by nature, but by what comprises the "self" in each one of us.

Kindly demonstrate that any conscious choices I make are not determined by nature in some way, and in particular how my natural biology operates in respect of circumstances and influences (whether I'm aware of them or not), since I don't think I tend to make random choices.

For example, I am often accused of assertion, but what is it that "asserts"?  If my assertions are merely uncontrollable consequences of the physical reactions taking place in my subconscious brain before I become aware of them, then it is not "me" that is asserting, but the forces of nature acting within me over which I can have no control.  So can you honestly accuse nature itself of these apparently false assertions?  If not, then you must consider what it is that makes these assertions.  I stand accused, and if found guilty, then this is evidence for the assertive power of the human soul over nature itself.

Get over it, Alan: it is just a combination of your biology and circumstances whether you like it or not.

[torridon]

You are confusing Consciousness with conscious awareness. The unconscious mind does lots of things that we are not aware of, but it is still part of consciousness.

Conscious awareness is built up during our life time and is a part of the mind.  It is the mind that  loses a sense of time and which forgets things.

Think of a one day infant.  It is not aware of anything including its own existence or lapse of time.  Yet it is conscious.  Consciousness exits long before the mind and awareness are built around it.

That seems rather confusing, or maybe , confused.  Consciousness is an aspect of mind.  Minds can exhibit consciousness (in some or other degree) some of the time, subject to hormonal regulation such as going to sleep and waking up.  A sense of self is a function, or aspect, of conscious experience.  When I am choosing to do something, there is a feeling of selfhood at the centre of that.  Selfhood, or agency, is intimately bound up with the processes of consciousness, so Selfhood only exists, temporally, in the degree to which consciousness is operating.  This is central to the notion of agency.

[ekim]

That seems rather confusing, or maybe , confused.  Consciousness is an aspect of mind.  Minds can exhibit consciousness (in some or other degree) some of the time, subject to hormonal regulation such as going to sleep and waking up.  A sense of self is a function, or aspect, of conscious experience.  When I am choosing to do something, there is a feeling of selfhood at the centre of that.  Selfhood, or agency, is intimately bound up with the processes of consciousness, so Selfhood only exists, temporally, in the degree to which consciousness is operating.  This is central to the notion of agency.

I may be wrong but I think what Sriram is saying is that mind is an aspect of consciousness i.e. it is one of the forms which consciousness functions within.  Another form is the selfhood you mention.  Both are changeable and change throughout a lifetime but consciousness doesn't, just its direction does.  It's based upon Hindu philosophy rather than western psychology and biology.

[Alan Burns]

Nope: you don't get to create classes of determinism just because you don't like the consequences of determinism for your faith, so this is another example of an argumentum ad consequentium.

No - your over active fallacy detector has got it wrong again, Gordon.
It is nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes.
It is a simple fact that physical determinism can't be used to explain how I can invoke consciously driven choices.
A choice which can't be derived from the uncontrollable physically determined reactions of purely material entities

Kindly demonstrate that any conscious choices I make are not determined by nature in some way, and in particular how my natural biology operates in respect of circumstances and influences (whether I'm aware of them or not), since I don't think I tend to make random choices.

Conscious choices are not random, Gordon.  They are determined by your own conscious will.
But conscious awareness and freedom to choose are not natural properties of a purely material universe driven by nothing but the pre determined reactions to previous physical events.

Biology describes and defines the physical mechanisms associated with our human bodies, but it does not define what is in control.  You are in control.  Pre defined reactions to physical events can by definition offer no control - just inevitable reaction.

You need to get to grips with this, Gordon, and come to terms with the fact that you comprise far more than what can be achieved by a blob of the continuum of this material universe entirely driven by the unguided, aimless, uncontrollable forces of nature.

[Alan Burns]

That seems rather confusing, or maybe , confused.  Consciousness is an aspect of mind.  Minds can exhibit consciousness (in some or other degree) some of the time, subject to hormonal regulation such as going to sleep and waking up.  A sense of self is a function, or aspect, of conscious experience.  When I am choosing to do something, there is a feeling of selfhood at the centre of that.  Selfhood, or agency, is intimately bound up with the processes of consciousness, so Selfhood only exists, temporally, in the degree to which consciousness is operating.  This is central to the notion of agency.

You try to use labels such as agency and mind which in themselves do not have a physical definition and do not come close to defining what comprises our conscious awareness.  The self is real, Torri, it is you.  It is not just a temporary blip in the material properties of your body.

[Gordon]

No - your over active fallacy detector has got it wrong again, Gordon.

Nope.

It is nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes.

Yes it is: very much so, hence your rejection of determinism, which is why you attempt to subdivide it, where acceptance of it is the death knell for your particular approach to your faith (the 'souls' bit).
 

It is a simple fact that physical determinism can't be used to explain how I can invoke consciously driven choices.
A choice which can't be derived from the uncontrollable physically determined reactions of purely material entities

Let's all say a big hello to Mr Personal Incredulity, again (with a dash of argument from ignorance)!

Conscious choices are not random, Gordon.

I didn't say they were, Alan.

They are determined by your own conscious will.

Which in turn is subject to determinism, unless you make random choices (which I suspect is impossible anyway).

But conscious awareness and freedom to choose are not natural properties of a purely material universe driven by nothing but the pre determined reactions to previous physical events.

Yes they are. Leaving aside your usual use of hyperbole, it might not seem that way to you when it comes to deciding whether you want tea or coffee, to go for a swim or not , or whatever: but it probably is that way irrespective of your personal preferences since if not then your choices would be undetermined (random), and you'd never make it through the average day in that situation.

To add a touch of hyperbole of my own, Alan: you are a biological robot at the mercy of underlying unconscious desires and cumulative circumstances and influences in the universe, and no doubt a degree of luck (or not) in a few situations.   

Biology describes and defines the physical mechanisms associated with our human bodies, but it does not define what is in control.

It does if this control is biological. I'd suggest that 'define' isn't a good term here: describe is quite sufficient.
 

You are in control.

My brain seems to be in control, which is indistinguishable from 'me', but I'm not sure it is really in control.

Pre defined reactions to physical events can by definition offer no control - just inevitable reaction.

Don't be so silly: you can think and make choices, but what you think and choose isn't ring-fenced from everything else. 

You need to get to grips with this, Gordon, and come to terms with the fact that you comprise far more than what can be achieved by a blob of the continuum of this material universe entirely driven by the unguided, aimless, uncontrollable forces of nature.

Here we go with the hyperbole: speaking as one blob to another, you've had this explained before (such as by Stranger, and others) and the reason you can't accept determinism is that to do so would negate your particular approach to faith - and that is a consequence you are protecting yourself from by indulging in illogical and fallacious thinking.

[Sriram]

That seems rather confusing, or maybe , confused.  Consciousness is an aspect of mind.  Minds can exhibit consciousness (in some or other degree) some of the time, subject to hormonal regulation such as going to sleep and waking up.  A sense of self is a function, or aspect, of conscious experience.  When I am choosing to do something, there is a feeling of selfhood at the centre of that.  Selfhood, or agency, is intimately bound up with the processes of consciousness, so Selfhood only exists, temporally, in the degree to which consciousness is operating.  This is central to the notion of agency.

In my view, Consciousness is fundamental.   It is what we are. We are conscious. An infant in conscious. Animals are conscious. Plants are conscious. Worms are conscious.

In other words, every living being has consciousness. It is essentially the difference between living and non living things. Consciousness also includes the unconscious part which seems to direct our lives even though we are normally unaware of its existence.  The unconscious part is said to be 90% of our consciousness.

Mind on the other hand is something that gets created as we live. It is like computer software.   Plants do not have a mind. Worms probably don't either. If a child is abandoned and does not undergo any training or learning, its mind will not develop and it will be mentally retarded.

Our self awareness, ego, memory, thoughts are generated and built up as we grow. They are not fundamental because we had none of these as new born infants.  Consciousness is however something we had from the moment we were born. 

We can identify Consciousness with the Self.  Even when mind is absent, the Self remains.

[torridon]

No - your over active fallacy detector has got it wrong again, Gordon.
It is nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes.
It is a simple fact that physical determinism can't be used to explain how I can invoke consciously driven choices.
A choice which can't be derived from the uncontrollable physically determined reactions of purely material entities Conscious choices are not random, Gordon.  They are determined by your own conscious will.

No such thing as physical determinism Alan, you really ought to know this by now.  Events are either deterministic or they aren't, it is as simple as that. It is not the case that 'physical' events have their own rules to play by, have their own unique rules of logic. Events are not material objects; in the normal sense, a stone is not an event. An event is not a thing it is something that happens.  The making of a choice is an event and the choice made will either be a consequence of something prior or it will not, in which case it is random.  This is necessarily true irrespective the particular mechanism of choice.  It makes no difference if it is a Fortran program or the brain of a bumble bee, an AI synth or a 'spiritual soul' if such a thing exists. It is a binary situation, the choice is either deterministic or random, spiritual souls don't get to make up their own rules of logic; to do so paints them as something inconceivable.

Conscious choices are not random, Gordon.  They are determined by your own conscious will.

Broadly correct, in my view, they are not random; they are deterministic.  This is consistent with the broad observation that things happen for a reason.  So how does the 'conscious will' determine a choice ? Whether it is conscious or not is a bit of a red herring, all consciousness is retrospective, a memory of what choice was made, just a moment ago.  Choices are resolved by weighing the options against each other to identify the one that appeals most against our internal model - our set of preferences and needs as they stand in time at the moment of choice.  So if I choose the apricot, not the peach, that is because the apricot is the one that appealed most to me at that moment in time.  I have no control over whether the apricot appeals to me or not, I have no control over how much it appeals to me.  This is the signature of determinism; at the end of the day we cannot control how external things impact on us; I cannot use my will to force an implausible suggestion to suddenly appear plausible; I cannot use my will to force an unappealing peach to suddenly become appealing to me.  We have no 'control' over these things

[torridon]

You try to use labels such as agency and mind which in themselves do not have a physical definition and do not come close to defining what comprises our conscious awareness.  The self is real, Torri, it is you.  It is not just a temporary blip in the material properties of your body.

Not a temporary blip, more a fundamental aspect of mind; more accurately still, it is a fundamental aspect of consciousness, which itself is a temporal phenomenon of mind.  What it certainly isn't, is something separate to me, as you seem to be in the habit of portraying it, as something 'looking at my brain cells' as if it had distinct ontology. Everything with a mind will have some or other sense of self. A robin has a sense of self as does a hedgehog, although I'm struggling with what it would be like to be an octopus, which in some senses is a single organism with 8 arms, and in other respects, it is 8 arms each with their own mind, conjoined into a single creature.

The sense of self is a fundamental phenomenon of conscious experience and it is intimately bound up with agency.  There is clear evolutionary benefit for this development - an organism that develops a strong sense of identity and control will more likely look after itself than one with a less well developed sense.  Our sense of self has been selected for and it is a defining feature of the human phenotype that this sense has developed into personhood - a much stronger sense of self than occurs currently in the other great apes for instance.  The notion that our 'self' is something separate to us is both bizarre and baseless.

[Nearly Sane]

As an aside for torridon, thought he might like this.


https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/12/14/the-soul-of-an-octopus-sy-montgomery/

[torridon]

As an aside for torridon, thought he might like this.


https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/12/14/the-soul-of-an-octopus-sy-montgomery/

Yes a nice read that. I'm going to make it a point to stroke an octopus should I ever get the privilege.  Giant cuttlefish too are known for their inquisitiveness and friendliness and given these creatures developed their own sentience and intelligence quite separately from us any bonding or recognition we could achieve would speak volumes about the nature of sentience and intelligence, eroding our myth of human exceptionalism.

[torridon]

In my view, Consciousness is fundamental.   It is what we are. We are conscious. An infant in conscious. Animals are conscious. Plants are conscious. Worms are conscious.

In other words, every living being has consciousness. It is essentially the difference between living and non living things. Consciousness also includes the unconscious part which seems to direct our lives even though we are normally unaware of its existence.  The unconscious part is said to be 90% of our consciousness.

Mind on the other hand is something that gets created as we live. It is like computer software.   Plants do not have a mind. Worms probably don't either. If a child is abandoned and does not undergo any training or learning, its mind will not develop and it will be mentally retarded.

Our self awareness, ego, memory, thoughts are generated and built up as we grow. They are not fundamental because we had none of these as new born infants.  Consciousness is however something we had from the moment we were born. 

We can identify Consciousness with the Self.  Even when mind is absent, the Self remains.

All that is using the term 'consciousness' in an aberrant way.  Sloppy misuse of language always causes confusion.  To bring an element of rigour to this discourse, 'consciousness' refers to that state of mind which is lost when the anaesthetist injects you with Propofol. Consciousness is an attentional state of complex brains constructed out of subliminal precursor mind states.  Thus pretty much everything with a high order brain will experience consciousness at times.  Things without brains will not be capable of such experience.  It might be true that all things, all matter for instance, communicates, in various ways; but it is wrong, misleading and confusing, to claim that the primitives of communication at the level of simple matter are consciousness.  The latter may be a very high order derivative of the former; they aren't the same thing.

[ekim]

All that is using the term 'consciousness' in an aberrant way.  Sloppy misuse of language always causes confusion.  To bring an element of rigour to this discourse, 'consciousness' refers to that state of mind which is lost when the anaesthetist injects you with Propofol. Consciousness is an attentional state of complex brains constructed out of subliminal precursor mind states.  Thus pretty much everything with a high order brain will experience consciousness at times.  Things without brains will not be capable of such experience.  It might be true that all things, all matter for instance, communicates, in various ways; but it is wrong, misleading and confusing, to claim that the primitives of communication at the level of simple matter are consciousness.  The latter may be a very high order derivative of the former; they aren't the same thing.

From the 'Hindu' perspective, though, your use of the term 'consciousness' would be seen as aberrant and narrow.  It is quite likely that the language confusion is not from sloppiness but from the fact that Sriram is using 'best fit' English words to convey something of Hindu philosophical  Sanskrit expressions like Atman, Ahamkara, Buddhi, Citta and Manas.  He is probably doomed to failure if he is conversing with people who don't want to stray beyond nervous system mechanics and it doesn't mix well within a Christian topic such as this one, but you have to give him credit for persisting.

[ippy]

From the 'Hindu' perspective, though, your use of the term 'consciousness' would be seen as aberrant and narrow.  It is quite likely that the language confusion is not from sloppiness but from the fact that Sriram is using 'best fit' English words to convey something of Hindu philosophical  Sanskrit expressions like Atman, Ahamkara, Buddhi, Citta and Manas.  He is probably doomed to failure if he is conversing with people who don't want to stray beyond nervous system mechanics and it doesn't mix well within a Christian topic such as this one, but you have to give him credit for persisting.

Good point ekim, the translation of language from one to another is far from straightforward.

Even when speaking the same language to each other our individual semantics differ so much from person to person.

I'm a typical English person and only have the English language to hand, love hearing the east Europeans skilfully speaking English and occasionally still using English drop into the grammar of their original home language from time to time.

Regards ippy

[Sriram]

All that is using the term 'consciousness' in an aberrant way.  Sloppy misuse of language always causes confusion.  To bring an element of rigour to this discourse, 'consciousness' refers to that state of mind which is lost when the anaesthetist injects you with Propofol. Consciousness is an attentional state of complex brains constructed out of subliminal precursor mind states.  Thus pretty much everything with a high order brain will experience consciousness at times.  Things without brains will not be capable of such experience.  It might be true that all things, all matter for instance, communicates, in various ways; but it is wrong, misleading and confusing, to claim that the primitives of communication at the level of simple matter are consciousness.  The latter may be a very high order derivative of the former; they aren't the same thing.

As ekim has pointed out, if you insist on using only biological mechanisms as the basis to explain consciousness, it is going to be very difficult.

I agree that the word Consciousness can be used in many ways.  Defining consciousness as 'wakefulness' is one narrow way of defining it.  But even wiki has some broader definitions.

"Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined variously in terms of sentience, awareness, qualia, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood or soul, the fact that there is something "that it is like" to "have" or "be" it, and the executive control system of the mind.[3] In contemporary philosophy its definition is often hinted at via the logical possibility of its absence, the philosophical zombie, which is defined as a being whose behavior and function are identical to one's own yet there is "no-one in there" experiencing it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

I was using the word 'Self' but changed to consciousness to make it simple...but that seems to have complicated it further.


l

[Alan Burns]

No such thing as physical determinism Alan, you really ought to know this by now.  Events are either deterministic or they aren't, it is as simple as that. It is not the case that 'physical' events have their own rules to play by, have their own unique rules of logic. Events are not material objects; in the normal sense, a stone is not an event. An event is not a thing it is something that happens.  The making of a choice is an event and the choice made will either be a consequence of something prior or it will not, in which case it is random.  This is necessarily true irrespective the particular mechanism of choice.  It makes no difference if it is a Fortran program or the brain of a bumble bee, an AI synth or a 'spiritual soul' if such a thing exists. It is a binary situation, the choice is either deterministic or random, spiritual souls don't get to make up their own rules of logic; to do so paints them as something inconceivable.

Broadly correct, in my view, they are not random; they are deterministic.  This is consistent with the broad observation that things happen for a reason.  So how does the 'conscious will' determine a choice ? Whether it is conscious or not is a bit of a red herring, all consciousness is retrospective, a memory of what choice was made, just a moment ago.  Choices are resolved by weighing the options against each other to identify the one that appeals most against our internal model - our set of preferences and needs as they stand in time at the moment of choice.  So if I choose the apricot, not the peach, that is because the apricot is the one that appealed most to me at that moment in time.  I have no control over whether the apricot appeals to me or not, I have no control over how much it appeals to me.  This is the signature of determinism; at the end of the day we cannot control how external things impact on us; I cannot use my will to force an implausible suggestion to suddenly appear plausible; I cannot use my will to force an unappealing peach to suddenly become appealing to me.  We have no 'control' over these things

I agree that everything is determined by something, Torri.  I have made this clear a number of times.  The big question is this:  Is everything entirely pre determined? 

The reason I use the "physical" is because this relegates everything to be entirely pre determined by endless chains of physical cause and effect under the control of physical scientific rules.

But has every keystroke I consciously choose to type on the keyboard been pre determined since the beginning of time?  If not, what can intervene to facilitate my conscious will to type these keys?

[Maeght]

No one suggests that events are laid out from the beginning of time Alan. People are saying that your responses are  predetermined by previous experiences and events and your genes. These events are not predetermined but are just things which happen in your life. The brain becomes programmed by events such that you have no actual control over responses, beliefs etc they are predetermined in that way.

[wigginhall]

How did we segue from determinism to predeterminism?

[Maeght]

How did we segue from determinism to predeterminism?

Not sure.