Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Not everything is survival benefited since if they were would would all, er survive.....see Darwin awards. I think you maybe conflating intelligent awareness with self awareness as it is experienced.

Why would having that make us more survivable than an intelligence such as ours without the added self awareness?


Plants survive without either intelligence beyond mechanical or self awareness.


In fact if you are using blindsight as an argument we survive through systems we are not aware of so self awareness for survival argument cuts less ice.

A blind person is going to be at a competitive disadvantage compared to a fully sighted person, even if he can navigate to some extent using the phenomenon of blindsight.

[Alan Burns]

As I have explained multiple times: to the extent any choice is not fully determined by past events and current state,

Well at least you acknowledge that there is a current state which has influence.

So let us expand a bit on what comprises current, or present state.

Our conscious awareness at any moment is in what must be acknowledged as the present state.  There will also be memories perceived within our conscious awareness, but these will be consciously recognised as memories within this present state.  And the present state of awareness will involve both sensory data and conscious thought in addition to memories. 

But we must recognise that awareness of data is not the data itself, but a representation of this data within the entity of conscious awareness which comprises you and me.

So we have this entity of awareness existing in the present state which perceives current sensory data, thought and memories, from which it can invoke a consciously driven choice which will be influenced by this perception, but not driven by it.  All done in the present state.  And nothing random about it.

[Alan Burns]

Clearly conscious awareness does confer advantage or it would not have evolved and it would not have been conserved. If you are less aware of potential threats you are more likely to become a victim.  If you are less aware of resource opportunities, rivals will exploit all the best food.  If you really cannot see the benefit of conscious awareness try this simple experiment - go put yourself in a dangerous unpredictable environment and then put on a blindfold and ear mufflers and see how long you survive. Maybe then you will start to understand the survival benefit of conscious awareness.

Did you not understand what I meant by programmed reactions to sensory data?
Of course blindfolds and earmuffs will hinder reactions to sensory data.

Sensory data does not need to be consciously perceived in order to invoke advantageous reactions to aid survival.

[torridon]

Did you not understand what I meant by programmed reactions to sensory data?
Of course blindfolds and earmuffs will hinder reactions to sensory data.

Sensory data does not need to be consciously perceived in order to invoke advantageous reactions to aid survival.

Conscious perception does confer massive advantage though and this is why it has evolved and been conserved.  Imagine a tennis match between a fully conscious person and a sleepwalker, sleepwalking being an approximate model for understanding the nature of subconscious perception. Who do you think would win the match ?  My money would be firmly on the person benefiting from full consciousness.

[torridon]

Well at least you acknowledge that there is a current state which has influence.

So let us expand a bit on what comprises current, or present state.

Our conscious awareness at any moment is in what must be acknowledged as the present state.  There will also be memories perceived within our conscious awareness, but these will be consciously recognised as memories within this present state.  And the present state of awareness will involve both sensory data and conscious thought in addition to memories. 

But we must recognise that awareness of data is not the data itself, but a representation of this data within the entity of conscious awareness which comprises you and me.

So we have this entity of awareness existing in the present state which perceives current sensory data, thought and memories, from which it can invoke a consciously driven choice which will be influenced by this perception, but not driven by it.  All done in the present state.  And nothing random about it.

But there's no getting away from the fact that a choice is made at the end of the day and that choice will reflect the determining factor otherwise it would be a random choice. Some or other influence or factor must prevail for the choice to be resolved.  This is an insight into the nature of choice, it is not mechanism-dependent.  Given that we have no control over the competing influences, it remains a deterministic situation.  For a choice to be meaningful, not random, it must be made for a reason, and this is the hallmark of cause and effect as it manifests in human choice.

[Maeght]

Well at least you acknowledge that there is a current state which has influence.

So let us expand a bit on what comprises current, or present state.

Our conscious awareness at any moment is in what must be acknowledged as the present state.  There will also be memories perceived within our conscious awareness, but these will be consciously recognised as memories within this present state.  And the present state of awareness will involve both sensory data and conscious thought in addition to memories. 

But we must recognise that awareness of data is not the data itself, but a representation of this data within the entity of conscious awareness which comprises you and me.

So we have this entity of awareness existing in the present state which perceives current sensory data, thought and memories, from which it can invoke a consciously driven choice which will be influenced by this perception, but not driven by it.  All done in the present state.  And nothing random about it.

That's fine, except you say 'invoke a consciously driven choice'. It is the origin and nature of that choice which this discussion is about so that doesn't really move us forward.

[Alan Burns]

If the logic we portray pertaining to conscious choice does not acknowledge our consciously driven freedom to contemplate such logic, then it is flawed.

[Nearly Sane]

If the logic we portray pertaining to conscious choice does not acknowledge our consciously driven freedom to contemplate such logic, then it is flawed.

There is only logic, Alan. There isn't different logic. And if you assume something is true, even though you have never managed to define it in a logically coherent fashion, then you are not being logical.

[Alan Burns]

Given that we have no control over the competing influences, it remains a deterministic situation. 

But we do have control, Torri
If we have no control, then we can have no confidence in what we write.

[Gordon]

But we do have control, Torri
If we have no control, then we can have no confidence in what we write.

You need to remove your theo-blinkers, Alan.

[Stranger]

Well at least you acknowledge that there is a current state which has influence.

Not only have I never denied it, I've included it every time I describe the process. However, you need to recognise that said current state comes about due to the system's initial state and its history - in human terms it amounts to the combined effect of nature, nurture, and experience; what has made you and me the people we are.

So let us expand a bit on what comprises current, or present state.

Our conscious awareness at any moment is in what must be acknowledged as the present state.  There will also be memories perceived within our conscious awareness, but these will be consciously recognised as memories within this present state.  And the present state of awareness will involve both sensory data and conscious thought in addition to memories. 

But we must recognise that awareness of data is not the data itself, but a representation of this data within the entity of conscious awareness which comprises you and me.

So we have this entity of awareness existing in the present state which perceives current sensory data, thought and memories, from which it can invoke a consciously driven choice which will be influenced by this perception, but not driven by it.  All done in the present state.  And nothing random about it.

Which is just a long winded way of avoiding the logic yet again.

The point being that if all the factors that influence this "entity of awareness existing in the present state"'s choice (including its own current state of mind) do not fully define (drive it to) only one choice, then, to the extent that they don't, the choice must be random because it is based on nothing (all the possible influencing factors have already been taken into account) and a choice based on nothing must be random.
 
Cue more evasion...

[Alan Burns]

There is only logic, Alan. There isn't different logic. And if you assume something is true, even though you have never managed to define it in a logically coherent fashion, then you are not being logical.

But I am not assuming something to be true.
I am able to demonstrate my freedom to choose in what I consciously choose to write.  If any conceived logic denies me this obvious freedom, then it is flawed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A blind person is going to be at a competitive disadvantage compared to a fully sighted person, even if he can navigate to some extent using the phenomenon of blindsight.

That still does not detract that an intelligent enough mechanism could handle all survival functions without recourse to the experience of awareness.


In fact those who argue that all functions are handled by the subconscious anyway and there are many here have flagged that up.


Therefore even they dispute your suggestion that consciousness is there for survival

[Nearly Sane]

But I am not assuming something to be true.
I am able to demonstrate my freedom to choose in what I consciously choose to write.  If any conceived logic denies me this obvious freedom, then it is flawed.

Assertions don't trump logic

[Alan Burns]

Not only have I never denied it, I've included it every time I describe the process. However, you need to recognise that said current state comes about due to the system's initial state and its history - in human terms it amounts to the combined effect of nature, nurture, and experience; what has made you and me the people we are.

Which is just a long winded way of avoiding the logic yet again.

The point being that if all the factors that influence this "entity of awareness existing in the present state"'s choice (including its own current state of mind) do not fully define (drive it to) only one choice, then, to the extent that they don't, the choice must be random because it is based on nothing (all the possible influencing factors have already been taken into account) and a choice based on nothing must be random.
 
Cue more evasion...

But it is you who are guilty of evasion.
In all your posts you do not acknowledge or consider the power of human will, which gives us freedom to choose, freedom to think, freedom to pray, freedom to choose our destiny.

[Nearly Sane]

But it is you who are guilty of evasion.
In all your posts you do not acknowledge or consider the power of human will, which gives us freedom to choose, freedom to think, freedom to pray, freedom to choose our destiny.

This is an example of begging the question so extreme that it will not be able to walk straight for days.

[Alan Burns]

Assertions don't trump logic

Demonstrable truth trumps flawed logical thinking.

[Nearly Sane]

Demonstrable truth trumps flawed logic.

You haven't demonstrated it. Stop lying.

[Alan Burns]

You haven't demonstrated it. Stop lying.

Lying, if it was true, would be deemed a deliberate action.  But without conscious freedom to choose, how can anyone be personally accused of lying?  Surely a deliberate lie is demonstrable evidence of personal freedom to choose.

[Nearly Sane]

Lying, if it was true, would be deemed a deliberate action.  But without conscious freedom to choose, how can anyone be personally accused of lying?  Surely a deliberate lie is demonstrable evidence of personal freedom to choose.

Evasion noted

[Alan Burns]

Evasion noted

Being personally accused of evasion also infers that I am doing it deliberately.  Surely evasion would in itself be demonstrable evidence of my conscious ability to choose.

[Nearly Sane]

Being personally accused of evasion also infers that I am doing it deliberately.  Surely evasion would in itself be demonstrable evidence of my conscious ability to choose.

Further evasion noted

[Alan Burns]

I suspect you are in denial, Alan, and well-practised denial at that in order to preserve your particular faith position.

Does it not worry you that the RCC, of which you are an active member, isn't (as far as I know) funding research to discover how these 'souls' interact with our biology and in doing so quantify this 'spiritual determinism' you've so often mentioned? You seem to be ploughing a lone furrow!

Human free will is central to Christian faith, in which the soul is accountable for our chosen actions.  If we have no free will, our faith would be meaningless.  It would also be impossible, because without our God given freedom to think there can be no possibility of faith in anything.

[Nearly Sane]

Human free will is central to Christian faith, in which the soul is accountable for our chosen actions.  If we have no free will, our faith would be meaningless.  It would also be impossible, because without our God given freedom to think there can be no possibility of faith in anything.

Christian faith is in general terms illogical. If you have a omni god, as most Christian faith argues, this is the only and best possible world. Which is why you worship the deity that by your position created skin cancer chose to kill my friend at 28. By your own statements you worship and love a thug

[Gordon]

Human free will is central to Christian faith, in which the soul is accountable for our chosen actions.

Thank you for the statement of your faith, Alan: you do realise this is just assertion on your part since you haven't ever been able to say anything specific about this 'soul'.

If we have no free will, our faith would be meaningless.

There are no good reasons to think we have 'free will' as you envisage it, Alan, where what you say about it is largely incoherent and/or fallacious: so yes, I think your brand faith is indeed meaningless (and illogical).

It would also be impossible, because without our God given freedom to think there can be no possibility of faith in anything.

Yet more fallacious nonsense.