Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

But if your brain is itself composed of material particles, the behaviour of which are entirely dictated by the laws of physics, you can't consciously interact with anything.  You can only react in accordance with the laws over which you have no control.

Fallacy of composition, again.

[Alan Burns]

No, it isn't and it's been explained to you many times.

Nobody said that it would. Now how about addressing the purely logical argument I actually presented instead of this "physically predetermined, physical particles" straw man argument that you keep pointlessly constructing and then pulling down?

So basically, it's so magic it doesn't need to be logically self-consistent? So much for you having a logical argument...   

The behaviour of physical material is determined by the laws of physics.
Do you presume to know what determines the behaviour of spiritual entities?

[Alan Burns]

Fallacy of composition, again.

No.
You can't impose other forms of control over the basic rules of physically controlled material interaction

[Stranger]

The behaviour of physical material is determined by the laws of physics.

Yes, everybody knows this.

Do you presume to know what determines the behaviour of spiritual entities?

No (I don't actually think they exist) but I am making the assumption that whatever it is, is logically self-consistent. You have, after all, claimed to be able to support your position with logic (despite never actually managing to).

If you simply don't care about self-consistency and are claiming that "spiritual entities" can do self-contradictory things, then all reason and logic is removed from the discussion and any claim that you are using logic is clearly false.

[Stranger]

You can't impose other forms of control over the basic rules of physically controlled material interaction

Control doesn't mean magic, and it's dishonest to pretend that it does. Physical systems can and do control things.

[Gordon]

No.
You can't impose other forms of control over the basic rules of physically controlled material interaction

I guess the fallacy of composition is another that you don't understand.

[Gordon]

The behaviour of physical material is determined by the laws of physics.

No shit, Sherlock.

Do you presume to know what determines the behaviour of spiritual entities?

I think the problem is that you presume that there are 'spiritual entities' in the first place, and you don't know this (as in having knowledge). Therefore your point about the behaviour of these 'spiritual entities' is begging the question.
 

[Sebastian Toe]

But what perceives this information?

You, your brain.
No soul required.

[torridon]

Yes, we operate within the laws of nature, but does nature control us?  Or are you in control?

In a superficial sense, we might claim to control nature, for instance, we might clear forestry to make way for agriculture.  But this isn't 'controlling nature' in a profound sense.

In a more profound sense, there is no 'us and them' split between us and nature, as if we were something different. We are natural beings, the behaviours we exhibit, the choices we make, are all expressions of Nature.  In this more profound sense, there is no 'controlling' going on either way.  The 'laws' of nature are really just expressions of a deep mathematical logic as it manifests through real world things like quarks and planets and galaxies and insurance salesmen.  To 'break' these laws would imply breaking logic which would be meaningless.

This notion that humans are distinct from Nature, is a particular vision of the human condition that happened to be a characteristic of early Jewish beliefs still with us today thanks to those beliefs being conserved through the twists and turns of geopolitical history. It is an aberrant view; it doesn't help

[SusanDoris]

No.
You can't impose other forms of control over the basic rules of physically controlled material interaction

Yet another set of Vabout 17 words, thrown together , asserting an endlessly repeated non-meaning.

[ekim]

Conscious awareness is not a separate thing to a brain, it is produced by brain functioning to better prioritise awareness, but it is not a separate thing to that which produces it.


Concepts of 'control' and 'freedom' at higher levels of biological complexity are useful concepts at those levels of emergence, they are essentially feelings produced by mind at the interface between thoughts and actions and although we live our lives almost exclusively in those higher domains of emergence does not mean that feelings do not derive from an underlying substrate of biological functioning which is entirely deterministic.

I've clipped out a couple of your points to use to suggest what the 'spiritual' side might be.
Consciousness and intelligence exist in their own right, the former as the basis of life and the latter a function of life.  The brain does not create consciousness.  Consciousness is simple in essence and permeates all life forms from simple bacteria to complex human beings, from simple body cells to complex brains.  Intelligence is the function used to sustain the life form and with consciousness, perhaps initially through trial and error, selects the optimum means of sustenance and continues to repeat it until the formal process fails.  As consciousness permeates all life forms there is the facility for cooperation or competition.  Cooperation has the potential to create unity and complexity, competition to destroy unity.  Consciousness has two elements - receptive and directive.  Control in the spiritual sense is not about controlling e.g. thoughts and emotions, but having control over the direction consciousness takes i.e. what it is focused upon.  Loss of this kind of control happens when consciousness is bound up in the repetitive cycles of physical and mental activity which is often termed sub consciousness or automatic pilot.  Freedom is about regaining control over the tug of sub consciousness and realising consciousness in its pristine state.  You could call this 'emergence' but not as mind created state.  It is more often called transcendence or ascendance.

[Alan Burns]

You, your brain.
No soul required.

The brain is a word which describes a material entity comprising a collection of sub atomic particles.  The same sub atomic particles you would find in a lump of rock or other material entities, such as a man made computer - neither of which possess the attribute of conscious self awareness.  Self awareness requires the ability of a single entity to consciously perceive information contained in millions of brain cells (not just react to it).  To presume that this single entity can be defined by certain patterns of sub atomic particles is a presumption which can't be proven.  So to say no soul required is an unprovable presumption.

[Alan Burns]

Control doesn't mean magic, and it's dishonest to pretend that it does. Physical systems can and do control things.

Physical systems can only do what is definable by physical reactions.  So ultimately physical systems can only react according to pre defined rules.  Reaction is not control.

[Gordon]

The brain is a word which describes a material entity comprising a collection of sub atomic particles.  The same sub atomic particles you would find in a lump of rock or other material entities, such as a man made computer - neither of which possess the attribute of conscious self awareness.  Self awareness requires the ability of a single entity to consciously perceive information contained in millions of brain cells (not just react to it).  To presume that this single entity can be defined by certain patterns of sub atomic particles is a presumption which can't be proven.  So to say no soul required is an unprovable presumption.

My goodness, Alan: you seem to have fallen for the fallacy of composition hook, line and sinker today!

[Stranger]

The brain is a word which describes a material entity comprising a collection of sub atomic particles.  The same sub atomic particles you would find in a lump of rock or other material entities, such as a man made computer - neither of which possess the attribute of conscious self awareness.

Yes and rocks can't do computations, or be liquids at room temperature, or shine like the sun, or grow like plants, or react like animals. You really haven't thought about this at all, have you?

Self awareness requires the ability of a single entity to consciously perceive information contained in millions of brain cells (not just react to it).  To presume that this single entity can be defined by certain patterns of sub atomic particles is a presumption which can't be proven.  So to say no soul required is an unprovable presumption.

Unprovable perhaps, but it is based on the evidence we have, whereas your notion of the soul has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and is logically contradictory and hence impossible.

So, unprovable but in accordance with all the evidence vers. supported by no evidence and impossible anyway - that's a tough one.... 

Physical systems can only do what is definable by physical reactions.  So ultimately physical systems can only react according to pre defined rules.  Reaction is not control.

Do stop trying to make words mean something that they don't - it's tantamount to lying.

The word control has a perfectly good definition and it doesn't involve self-contradictory nonsense about logically impossible deterministic, non-deterministic, non-random actions of imaginary entities.

[Alan Burns]

The word control has a perfectly good definition and it doesn't involve self-contradictory nonsense about logically impossible deterministic, non-deterministic, non-random actions of imaginary entities.

Control needs a conscious source which initiates control.

When you claim that machines have control, the control was initiated in the conscious mind of the maker of the machine.  The machine itself is not the source which initiates control.

All the Oxford English dictionary definitions of control infer a conscious source.

But where can a conscious source exist in an endless chain of physically defined reactions?

[Sebastian Toe]

The brain is a word which describes a material entity comprising a collection of sub atomic particles. 

...and a soul is made of....?

[Sebastian Toe]

Self awareness requires the ability of a single entity to consciously perceive information contained in millions of brain cells (not just react to it). 

Self awareness is produced by your brain as an integration of multiple streams of information flow into a singular flow of experience. 
No undefined, dont know what its made of, non logic following, essentially magic - soul, required.

[Alan Burns]

My goodness, Alan: you seem to have fallen for the fallacy of composition hook, line and sinker today!

I do not think you fully understand the impossibility of generating conscious awareness from material reactions.  Material elements can produce reactions.  And these reactions can be externally perceived as complex in their behaviour.  But whatever the amount of complex reaction generated in material elements, the end result will be nothing more than another externally perceived reaction.  Reaction alone can never define conscious awareness.  Our conscious awareness comprises perception of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

[Gordon]

I do not think you fully understand the impossibility of generating conscious awareness from material reactions.  Material elements can produce reactions.  And these reactions can be externally perceived as complex in their behaviour.  But whatever the amount of complex reaction generated in material elements, the end result will be nothing more than another externally perceived reaction.  Reaction alone can never define conscious awareness.  Our conscious awareness comprises perception of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

Yep: you've gone for the nuclear version of the fallacy of composition, with added zest from your usual personal incredulity.   

[Alan Burns]

Self awareness is produced by your brain as an integration of multiple streams of information flow into a singular flow of experience.

Information is not information until it is perceived.

What perceives this information?
What integrates it into a singular flow of experience?

[Stranger]

I do not think you fully understand the impossibility of generating conscious awareness from material reactions.

You have provided nothing to support this assertion but personal incredulity.

Material elements can produce reactions.  And these reactions can be externally perceived as complex in their behaviour.  But whatever the amount of complex reaction generated in material elements, the end result will be nothing more than another externally perceived reaction.  Reaction alone can never define conscious awareness.  Our conscious awareness comprises perception of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

The baseless assertions go on and on.

Remember that your alternative is logically impossible.

You can't have a choice that is made entirely due to pre-existing reasons (not random) and not made entirely due to pre-existing reasons (not "predetermined"). It's simply impossible.

[torridon]

Information is not information until it is perceived.

What perceives this information?
What integrates it into a singular flow of experience?

Are you being obtuse ?  This has been explained ad nauseum already; please go read the posts

[Alan Burns]

Yep: you've gone for the nuclear version of the fallacy of composition, with added zest from your usual personal incredulity.

The mention of material elements does not automatically infer fallacy of composition.
And using the word "impossible" does not automatically infer the fallacy of personal incredulity.

To produce a convincing counter argument you need to offer alternative explanations, not just the easy option of calling "fallacy".

[torridon]

I do not think you fully understand the impossibility of generating conscious awareness from material reactions.  Material elements can produce reactions.  And these reactions can be externally perceived as complex in their behaviour.  But whatever the amount of complex reaction generated in material elements, the end result will be nothing more than another externally perceived reaction.  Reaction alone can never define conscious awareness.  Our conscious awareness comprises perception of reactions, not the reactions themselves.

This is nonsense; just because we don't fully understand everything does not mean that it does not happen.  We don't fully understand photosynthesis, but we observe it so we try to understand it.  We don't fully understand quantum entanglement, but we observe it so we try to understand it. We don't fully understand consciousness, but we observe it so we try to understand it.  Pretending it is impossible is plain ridiculous.