Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Oh FFS Alan, how many more times do you need this explaining to you and how many more times do you need it explained to you that the only possible way in which a choice can be made that isn't entirely due to pre-existing reasons is to introduce something that is not due to any pre-existing reason, which means that it's for no reason and therefore random?

You fail to understand that consciously controlled human will exists and acts in the present, not the past.

[Stranger]

But you have failed to explain how a choice which is entirely defined by pre existing reasons can be classified with the word "freedom".

No I haven't failed to explain it. Disagreeing with what I said isn't the same as me not explaining it.

Once again: freedom is "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." The question then is how come you want what you want at the moment you make a choice?

Then we arrive again at the point you keep running away from: either what you want is entirely due to pre-existing reasons or there is some part of the choice making process that is not for any pre-existing reason and is therefore random.

There really isn't a third option. In order to be free you have to have wants and preferences - and those are either determined by pre-existing reasons or are, to some extent, random.

Surely any concept of freedom exists in the present, not the past.

Don't be silly. Freedom doesn't exist at a moment of time, let alone an all but fictional one.

My position is that the freedom of our human will exists and is demonstrated in every post that you or I consciously compose.  Your explanations totally fail to what constitutes of our freedom to consciously drive our own thoughts, words and actions.

Nobody (AFAIK) is disputing that freedom (in the sense given by the dictionary definition quoted above) exists.

I have explained how my concept of freedom works. You have explained nothing about how your version of freedom could work, nor have you addressed the fact that it is inherently self-contradictory and therefore impossible.

But in your opinion, what defined the originating events which determined the content of this reply?
You did not just seem to compose this reply, you actually did it.

How many more times?

Seriously Alan, I'm not going to just keep on answering these silly repetitive questions over and other just because you pretend to have not had an answer before. You are being very childish. By all means address what I've said in my answers but just 'forgetting' them and asking the same things over and over is dishonest in the extreme.

Yes I did compose the reply. I did so using my experience, knowledge, beliefs, and state of mind. All of those things are due to my lifetime of experience, nature, and nurture. There was also what happened to occur to me to say at the time (something over which I have no conscious control but was, no doubt, also due to the factors already mentioned).

This isn't a difficult concept; it's really, really simple.

You fail to understand that consciously controlled human will exists and acts in the present, not the past.

That's because it's gibberish. Nothing can exist just in the present; as I have already explained, the present (even if it could be properly defined, which it can't) would last for no time.

[Alan Burns]

That's because it's gibberish. Nothing can exist just in the present; as I have already explained, the present (even if it could be properly defined, which it can't) would last for no time.

The present is not fiction as you previously implied.
Every event occurs in the present - including a conscious act of human freewill.

[Alan Burns]

N

Yes I did compose the reply. I did so using my experience, knowledge, beliefs, and state of mind. All of those things are due to my lifetime of experience, nature, and nurture. There was also what happened to occur to me to say at the time (something over which I have no conscious control but was, no doubt, also due to the factors already mentioned).

Yes, all this data exists in your memory cells, but what pulls it all together and consciously uses this data to choose and compile what you write?

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes, all this data exists in your memory cells, but what pulls it all together and consciously uses this data to choose and compile what you write?

Can your soul count?

[jjohnjil]

Yes, all this data exists in your memory cells, but what pulls it all together and consciously uses this data to choose and compile what you write?

Alan

If you can't accept that the brain itself is pulling all this information together and choosing what to write, how do you envisage the soul doing it?  Does it fly in when needed or is it inside your brain permanently? 

You seem to agree that it has to use the physical brain's stored away memories, but does it live inside that organ or float around outside?

You see, I can't understand how you can be convinced that something supernatural is going on without having some idea of how it does it.  It would be illogical to be convinced of one scenario that is a complete mystery to you, but dismiss out of hand the explanation that all those working in the field, day after day, give for it. 

As has been pointed out to you, numerous times, you can't have free will if this supernatural entity is doing the choosing and not Alan Burns - unless your 'soul' is just another name for you - which is, surprise surprise, no other part of your body but your brain! 

[Stranger]

The present is not fiction as you previously implied.
Every event occurs in the present - including a conscious act of human freewill.

So now you're denying basic physics as well.

No choice or action can happen in the present because a choice or action takes time and when it ends, its start is in the past. That's ignoring the fact that there is no concept of the present in physics (unevidenced conjectures aside), so it appears to be a product of our perception. It also ignores the fact that any moment in time can only be defined in a non-relative (observer independent) way, at a single point in space (see: Relativity of simultaneity).

Your reality denial in favour of your subjective experience is reaching new heights.

It's largely irrelevant anyway, because the existence of some sort of "present" in which things can actually happen wouldn't free you from the basic contradiction in your impossible version of free will anyway.

Yes, all this data exists in your memory cells, but what pulls it all together and consciously uses this data to choose and compile what you write?

My brain. That's what all the evidence is telling us. Why do you think there is a need for anything else, except for your ever present personal incredulity and apparent inability to grasp that your subjective experience may not be accurate?

I keep answering all your questions yet you still will not address the basic contradiction in your own view. If some part of a choice is not due to pre-existing reasons, then it must be for no reason and therefore random.

Note:

• You can't introduce a reason in "the present" because there is no amount of time to do so - but even if we ignore that, then the new reason must also be due to previous reasons or not (and therefore be random).
  
  
• You can't say that the reason is the "conscious will" because its how that will makes its choice that we are considering.

So how about you explain how your soul makes its choices?

[SteveH]

There may be no absolute present as you say, but there is certainly a local present, in which my thoughts and actions are taking place. It can indeed be argued, and was argued by Augistine of Hippo, that only the present exists: the past exists as present memories, and the future as present anticipation.

[Stranger]

There may be no absolute present as you say, but there is certainly a local present, in which my thoughts and actions are taking place. It can indeed be argued, and was argued by Augistine of Hippo, that only the present exists: the past exists as present memories, and the future as present anticipation.

As I pointed out, an action or a thought, takes time. By the time you've finished it, its start is in the past. I agree that there is a colloquial meaning of 'the present' but it can't save Alan from his contradiction because it doesn't really (technically) exist and therefore isn't fundamentally different from any other time. Events (including our thoughts and actions) must proceed as a deterministic system or involve randomness.

I know little of Augistine of Hippo but I can say with confidence that he didn't know anything about modern physics. General relativity (which is the best theory of time that we have and is backed up by copious evidence) gives us a view of space-time as a four dimensional block (manifold) with no notion of the flow of time or a present. Even the exact direction of time through the four dimensional manifold is observer dependent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I pointed out, an action or a thought, takes time. By the time you've finished it, its start is in the past. I agree that there is a colloquial meaning of 'the present' but it can't save Alan from his contradiction because it doesn't really (technically) exist and therefore isn't fundamentally different from any other time. Events (including our thoughts and actions) must proceed as a deterministic system or involve randomness.

I know little of Augistine of Hippo but I can say with confidence that he didn't know anything about modern physics. General relativity (which is the best theory of time that we have and is backed up by copious evidence) gives us a view of space-time as a four dimensional block (manifold) with no notion of the flow of time or a present. Even the exact direction of time through the four dimensional manifold is observer dependent.

You know that evolution has left no accommodation for relativistic events or phenomenon and yet here you are trying to introduce them into a debate about neurology.


Secondly you are talking about a theory of time as if it is cut and dried.


Your failing is completely due to looking at the world in terms of previous levels of organisation namely the time taken for light and information to travel between atoms. Not at all a feasible working framework for neuroscience.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

There may be no absolute present as you say, but there is certainly a local present, in which my thoughts and actions are taking place. It can indeed be argued, and was argued by Augistine of Hippo, that only the present exists: the past exists as present memories, and the future as present anticipation.

There isn’t “certainly a local present” but rather there’s a colloquial, folk understanding concept of it. “The present” describes at a superficial level the way we experience reality, but reality itself gives us a more profound understanding when we think harder about it.

This is AB’s consistent problem: he takes how stuff feels, intuitive perceptions etc and stops there. “That’s how reality seems to me, therefore that’s all there is to know about reality” is the beginning and end of it, and no amount of more robust reasoning or evidence can be allowed to impinge on that.

Just by way of a coda, he also then has the front to tell others that their thinking is “limited”, “restricted” etc because it doesn’t embrace his (or any other) superstitions. He tries in other words the “when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” line but forgets entirely that the only tool of investigation we have is a “hammer” (ie, reason, science etc). “Faith” which is all he has isn’t a tool of investigation or discovery of any kind because there’s no way to distinguish its claims from just guessing.

Oh well.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

If I have misunderstood you, then I apologise.  I’ve read some of your posts but admit I haven’t had the patience to wade through most of them.

Thank you and no problem - there are many posts, many are repetitive and I don't blame you for not wading through them.

I must admire you for defending what you see as posters bullying Alan, I don’t like to see it myself, although all fanatical religionists ask for it sometimes and I’ve been as guilty as anyone from time to time.  Jumping in and defending even the most ridiculous claims he makes though, reduces the credibility of the good arguments you often make.

Thank you again. I have not got involved many times, either because I don't have time to read and respond or because the arguments against him are not misrepresenting his position or overstating what we do know about how the brain works IMO. I try to provide links to alternative points of view in neuroscience/ experimental psychology or philosophy about the process of decision-making and how much of it is conscious vs unconscious. It's a fascinating subject and the people working in that field make it clear that there is a vast amount about the brain's processes that cannot yet be evidenced or explained in this particular area, in order to determine how much conscious reasoned choice can influence moral decisions.

It’s enough for me to now see that you do say that any evidence is better than none and therefore agree with those who argue that a ‘soul’ is as unevidenced an entity as a goblin or a fairy queen and anyone who claims to know anything about any one of them should provide more than an assertion – if, of course, they wish to be taken seriously.

Yes - i agree - no evidence for a soul so nothing more than an assertion based on belief.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I’m pretty sure you’re trolling now. It was AB who told us that he’d deny “any” theory that “effectively removes” etc. Which theories he thinks do that is something you’d have to take up with him. My point though (as I suspect you well know) is that he takes an a priori position regardless of what “any” theory does or in future could actually tell us.

Actually it’s you that seems to be trolling. It was you that interpreted AB’s statement whereby you asserted that AB consistently dismisses in its entirety the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness."  If you make assertions based on your interpretation of what you think Alan is saying, it's not surprising that you will be challenged, and trying to deflect from your inability to justify your assertion by accusing people who challenge you of trolling won’t work. You seem unable to provide evidence to back up your assertion that AB consistently dismisses in its entirety the scientific evidence etc so I suggest you do the decent thing and apologise to AB for making that unfounded statement about what he has posted. AB said he would deny a theory that attempted to overstate the evidence we currently do have by effectively removing the ability to consciously  choose actions. That statement is very different from your interpretation that AB consistently dismisses scientific evidence we do have in its entirety because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness.     
 

Yes I did correct you. It’s simply axiomatic that probabilistically more information will give you a better shot at identifying new discoveries than will less information. Why? Because knowledge is by and large cumulative – it builds on bridgeheads of knowledge that are already established. This is true of jig-saw puzzles, scientific theories or any other application of discovery of fact.

  No you didn’t correct me. Your statement about jigsaw puzzles made an unjustified assumption that the jigsaw puzzle shows a recognisable picture. If it shows no recognisable picture you can’t guess what is on the missing pieces. Trying to later insert the word “probabilistically” to cover up your initial mistake still doesn’t help as has already been explained to you – if the jigsaw puzzles have no recognisable picture you can’t guess the picture on the missing pieces from the half of the jigsaw you do have. The only connection between the pieces are the way they link together physically. Making unfounded assumptions about scientific theories or jigsaw puzzles doesn’t help you make a convincing argument.     

Wrong again, for the reasons I’ve explained to you several times now and you keep misrepresenting. What do you get out of it?

If I’m wrong you will have no problem presenting evidence that Alan made claims to know the “deepest truths or reality”. If you have no evidence I suggest you do the decent thing and apologise to Alan for misrepresenting him. Logically, it is impossible to say anyone knows the deepest reality or truth as there is no way of knowing if there is more to discover. A religious person is more likely to claim that only their god knows the deepest reality or truth

Stop it now. He’s told us frequently that he knows certain things to be true beyond any possibility of being wrong. Telling us that he “hasn’t quite worked out yet the details” about how a soul interacts with a brain for example doesn’t change that absolute certainty about the things he thinks he does know.   

Stop trolling, It’s just dull.

Could you be more specific rather than just asserting that Alan told us he knows "certain things" to be true beyond any possibility of being wrong. For example what things does he think he is not wrong about? Connecting with his god? And how does this translate to Alan claiming to know the "deepest reality or truths" which were the words you used to describe Alan's beliefs? The lack of preciseness and your refusal to provide quotes or post numbers for what Alan has said could be interpreted as an indication of you having a less than honest approach to this discussion.  If you persist in being unable to justify your assertions I suggest you apologise to Alan for your misrepresentations of him. See above as to why accusing me of trolling to divert attention from your own imprecise assertions and vague interpretations of Alan's posts won’t work.

He is, albeit that they should in fact be in the faith sharing area as that’s all he has – faith.

Given how there has been some good stuff on this thread I am glad Alan’s posts are here as the thread would not have generated so much interest in the faith-sharing area. No one is forcing you to participate here if you are not getting anything out of it.                           

They could, but that’s not what AB does. Rather he claims “soul” etc as objective facts about the world, and indeed that we all have one. That means he has to play by the rules of validating such claims, which is where he always falls apart like a cheap suit.

I agree. That’s his problem – I don’t find his assertions about souls or their role in choosing  persuasive as I have stated many times. I'm not even sure I understand what Alan is trying to say about choices not being either determined by the past or random. As far as I am concerned whatever choice I make is either completely random or, as is more likely, determined by something prior - e.g. my interpretation of past events, my reasoning of what IMO is the best moral choice under the circumstances based on my beliefs, knowledge and experience, and my interpretation and assessment of potential consequences based on my beliefs and my knowledge and interpretation of previous consequences in similar circumstances.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Actually it’s you that seems to be trolling. It was you that interpreted AB’s statement whereby you asserted that AB consistently dismisses in its entirety the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness."  If you make assertions based on your interpretation of what you think Alan is saying, it's not surprising that you will be challenged, and trying to deflect from your inability to justify your assertion by accusing people who challenge you of trolling won’t work. You seem unable to provide evidence to back up your assertion that AB consistently dismisses in its entirety the scientific evidence etc so I suggest you do the decent thing and apologise to AB for making that unfounded statement about what he has posted. AB said he would deny a theory that attempted to overstate the evidence we currently do have by effectively removing the ability to consciously  choose actions. That statement is very different from your interpretation that AB consistently dismisses scientific evidence we do have in its entirety because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness.

     

Wrong again. I repeated what AB actually said; you gave us your “interpretation” of it. He told us that he would deny “any” etc – “any” allows for no exception so it means "consistently". It’s not difficult.

He also said nothing about “overstating” – that’s just something else you’ve made up. Having made a blanket, invariable declaration (“any”) he then attached it to “effectively removes”. What theory would effectively remove his a priori beliefs and why he thinks it would do that is a matter for him. I merely explained the irrationality of dismissing a priori "any" theory that he thinks would do that no matter what the theory actually said. 

No you didn’t correct me. Your statement about jigsaw puzzles made an unjustified assumption that the jigsaw puzzle shows a recognisable picture. If it shows no recognisable picture you can’t guess what is on the missing pieces. Trying to later insert the word “probabilistically” to cover up your initial mistake still doesn’t help as has already been explained to you – if the jigsaw puzzles have no recognisable picture you can’t guess the picture on the missing pieces from the half of the jigsaw you do have. The only connection between the pieces are the way they link together physically. Making unfounded assumptions about scientific theories or jigsaw puzzles doesn’t help you make a convincing argument.

When you make a mistake I take the charitable view that it was just a mistake and I correct it. When you keep repeating the mistake despite the correction(s) then you’re lying.  The “probabilistically” was there all along (and not inserted later at all) and I even went to the trouble of asking you a question based on the probabilistic axiom I was explaining to you, but you just ignored it. Just editing out the “probabilistically” is dishonest.

The rest of you effort is just idiotic. Even if you had only one piece and it was (say) solid black, probabilistically you’d still have a better shot at identifying the picture (black cat, coal mine, night scene etc) than you’d have if you had no pieces at all (anything at all).     

If I’m wrong you will have no problem presenting evidence that Alan made claims to know the “deepest truths or reality”. If you have no evidence I suggest you do the decent thing and apologise to Alan for misrepresenting him.

You need to sort out what you’re trying to say here: whether he used precisely the word “deepest”; or whether he used other terms that mean the same thing. I’m pretty sure he did use “deepest”, but I’m certainly sure he used other terms that mean the same thing (“most profound”, “sincerest” etc). Worse, he seems proud of it and continually tells us that nothing could ever change his mind about his beliefs. You may have noticed by the way that in subsequent exchanges when I’ve explained that there’s no logical path from depth of feeling about an experience and the validity of the explanation for it he hasn’t at any point felt the need to say that he doesn’t claim to have deepest feelings about his beliefs.

Logically, it is impossible to say anyone knows the deepest reality or truth as there is no way of knowing if there is more to discover. A religious person is more likely to claim that only their god knows the deepest reality or truth

No shit Sherlock. Not sure why you think repeating my own argument back to me is relevant, but in any case you need to explain that to AB.

Could you be more specific rather than just asserting that Alan told us he knows "certain things" to be true beyond any possibility of being wrong. For example what things does he think he is not wrong about? Connecting with his god? And how does this translate to Alan claiming to know the "deepest reality or truths" which were the words you used to describe Alan's beliefs? The lack of preciseness and your refusal to provide quotes or post numbers for what Alan has said could be interpreted as an indication of you having a less than honest approach to this discussion.  If you persist in being unable to justify your assertions I suggest you apologise to Alan for your misrepresentations of him. See above as to why accusing me of trolling to divert attention from your own imprecise assertions and vague interpretations of Alan's posts won’t work.

AB’s the one who’s told us on several occasions that nothing could ever change his mind about various of his beliefs. Which of those beliefs he’s thinking of is something you’d have to ask him. 

Given how there has been some good stuff on this thread I am glad Alan’s posts are here as the thread would not have generated so much interest in the faith-sharing area. No one is forcing you to participate here if you are not getting anything out of it.

Way to miss the point.                           

I agree. That’s his problem – I don’t find his assertions about souls or their role in choosing  persuasive as I have stated many times. I'm not even sure I understand what Alan is trying to say about choices not being either determined by the past or random. As far as I am concerned whatever choice I make is either completely random or, as is more likely, determined by something prior - e.g. my interpretation of past events, my reasoning of what IMO is the best moral choice under the circumstances based on my beliefs, knowledge and experience, and my interpretation and assessment of potential consequences based on my beliefs and my knowledge and interpretation of previous consequences in similar circumstances.

Fine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

By way of a coda, I just chanced on this from AB:

My freedom to invoke conscious choices is evident in my most fundamental perception of reality.

(Reply 31620)

“Most fundamental” is a pretty good synonym for “deepest” don’t you think?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,
     

Wrong again. I repeated what AB actually said; you gave us your “interpretation” of it.

You're still wrong. You didn't repeat what he said, unless of course you want to let me know the post number where he used the same words you used - where he said he consistently dismisses in its entirety the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness. 

He told us that he would deny “any” etc – “any” allows for no exception so it means "consistently". It’s not difficult.

That's your interpretation. Thanks for confirming that you are interpreting, not repeating.

He also said nothing about “overstating” – that’s just something else you’ve made up.

It's my interpretation of what he said - I have no problem in saying I am interpreting Alan's words and I could be wrong, unlike your incorrect claims that you are repeating Alan's words.

Having made a blanket, invariable declaration (“any”) he then attached it to “effectively removes”. What theory would effectively remove his a priori beliefs and why he thinks it would do that is a matter for him. I merely explained the irrationality of dismissing a priori "any" theory that he thinks would do that no matter what the theory actually said.

Firstly, no you didn't explain an irrationality. What you did do was assert that Alan consistently dismisses in its entirety the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness. That's your interpretation. What scientific evidence for conscious choice are you claiming we have that he dismisses in its entirety? If your argument is that he should not deny any theory that effectively removes conscious choice, my question would be why not? It wouldn't be much of a theory if it purported to remove something it can't remove, especially based on existing theories that conscious choice has a role to play in certain decisions.

When you make a mistake I take the charitable view that it was just a mistake and I correct it. When you keep repeating the mistake despite the correction(s) then you’re lying.  The “probabilistically” was there all along (and not inserted later at all) and I even went to the trouble of asking you a question based on the probabilistic axiom I was explaining to you, but you just ignored it. Just editing out the “probabilistically” is dishonest.

Claiming the "probabilistically was there all along" is dishonest.

The rest of you effort is just idiotic. Even if you had only one piece and it was (say) solid black, probabilistically you’d still have a better shot at identifying the picture (black cat, coal mine, night scene etc) than you’d have if you had no pieces at all (anything at all).

Your response is idiotic - you would only be correct if you make the assumption that there is a recognisable, identifiable picture on the jigsaw that you could identify. 

You need to sort out what you’re trying to say here: whether he used precisely the word “deepest”; or whether he used other terms that mean the same thing. I’m pretty sure he did use “deepest”, but I’m certainly sure he used other terms that mean the same thing (“most profound”, “sincerest” etc).

Just so you know, "Pretty sure" or "certainly sure" doesn't cut it as a persuasive argument. Also your vagueness as to what he was referring to doesn't help validate your claim that Alan claimed to know the deepest truths or deepest reality about conscious choice or souls.

Worse, he seems proud of it and continually tells us that nothing could ever change his mind about his beliefs.

Which particular beliefs? All of them? A soul? His god? Conscious choice? Something he obviously can't predict since the future is unknown. 

You may have noticed by the way that in subsequent exchanges when I’ve explained that there’s no logical path from depth of feeling about an experience and the validity of the explanation for it he hasn’t at any point felt the need to say that he doesn’t claim to have deepest feelings about his beliefs.

If Alan decides to post that he knows the deepest truths or reality about how the brain makes conscious choices or how the soul is involved in that choice, then that would be proof enough for me that he thinks that way about his unevidenced assertions on conscious choice and the soul.   

No shit Sherlock. Not sure why you think repeating my own argument back to me is relevant, but in any case you need to explain that to AB.

Why would I need to do that if AB does not claim to know deepest truths or the deepest reality about conscious choice and the soul? If he does post to claim that he knows the deepest truth or deepest reality, then by all means I will give him my opinion on why I think he is wrong to claim that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

By way of a coda, I just chanced on this from AB:

(Reply 31620)

“Most fundamental” is a pretty good synonym for “deepest” don’t you think?

I got this for #31620?

You're never far from your favourite fallacies, Alan.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=750394;topic=10333.31600

Also, AB is talking about his fundamental perception of reality so it appears he at least acknowledges that his reality is based on perception, which is subjective rather than objective. I would think that was a good thing that he acknowledges his reality is subjective.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You're still wrong. You didn't repeat what he said, unless of course you want to let me know the post number where he used the same words you used - where he said he consistently dismisses in its entirety the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness.

No, you are – “any” means “any”. Not “some’, not “occasionally”, not “when it suits me”, not “every third time” and not anything else other than “any”. When you’re reduced to pretending even basic words no longer mean what they actually mean you’ve well and truly lost it.   

That's your interpretation. Thanks for confirming that you are interpreting, not repeating.

No, that’s what the word means ffs.

It's my interpretation of what he said - I have no problem in saying I am interpreting Alan's words and I could be wrong, unlike your incorrect claims that you are repeating Alan's words.

Stop trolling. Telling you what someone says is not the same as saying you’re quoting verbatim. He says he’d consistently deny etc. I know this because he said so when he used the inclusive, invariable, without exception term “any”. So do you. 

Firstly, no you didn't explain an irrationality.

Yes I did – many times in fact. That’s the substantive point you keep ignoring in favour of endless trolling about irrelevancies remember?

What you did do was assert that Alan consistently dismisses in its entirety the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness. That's your interpretation. What scientific evidence for conscious choice are you claiming we have that he dismisses in its entirety? If your argument is that he should not deny any theory that effectively removes conscious choice, my question would be why not? It wouldn't be much of a theory if it purported to remove something it can't remove, especially based on existing theories that conscious choice has a role to play in certain decisions.

Still trolling again. Why bother lying about that when it’s so easy to see what I actually said?

Claiming the "probabilistically was there all along" is dishonest.

No it isn’t. Stop lying.   

Your response is idiotic - you would only be correct if you make the assumption that there is a recognisable, identifiable picture on the jigsaw that you could identify.

Fuck me but you’re obtuse. It’s not my job to explain basic probability to you – look it up for yourself.   

Just so you know, "Pretty sure" or "certainly sure" doesn't cut it as a persuasive argument. Also your vagueness as to what he was referring to doesn't help validate your
claim that Alan claimed to know the deepest truths or deepest reality about conscious choice or souls.

Just so you know, describing what someone says but not saying you’re quoting verbatim doesn’t change the accuracy of describing what someone says. Stop trolling.

Which particular beliefs? All of them? A soul? His god? Conscious choice? Something he obviously can't predict since the future is unknown.

It’s his assertion, ask him.

If Alan decides to post that he knows the deepest truths or reality about how the brain makes conscious choices or how the soul is involved in that choice, then that would be proof enough for me that he thinks that way about his unevidenced assertions on conscious choice and the soul.

He tells us that his deepest/most fundamental feeling is that consciousness cannot be naturalistic, therefore it cannot be naturalistic no matter what any scientific theory may say to the contrary. QED     

Why would I need to do that if AB does not claim to know deepest truths or the deepest reality about conscious choice and the soul? If he does post to claim that he knows the deepest truth or deepest reality, then by all means I will give him my opinion on why I think he is wrong to claim that.

Weird.

I got this for #31620?
Quote from: Gordon on October 06, 2018, 12:31:44 PM
You're never far from your favourite fallacies, Alan.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=750394;topic=10333.31600

Also, AB is talking about his fundamental perception of reality so it appears he at least acknowledges that his reality is based on perception, which is subjective rather than objective. I would think that was a good thing that he acknowledges his reality is subjective.

Typo – it was 31260 and of course he was talking about his most fundamental perception of reality. His mistake though (one of many) is to think that the depth of that perception somehow correlates to the validity of his claim that no theory could ever falsify the explanations he thinks his perception provides.

As you have no interest ever in engaging with that substantive point though and will just continue trolling I’ll leave you to it.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

I don't suppose there is much chance of your admitting you were wrong about the jigsaw puzzles, but I  find it astonishing that you do not agree that someone would stand a better chance of making a suggestion about the picture with some pieces rather than with none.
even I, with my peripheral vision, would be able to make a suggestion which would have a greater probability of coming closer to the right answer if there were some pieces with colour on them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella

I don't suppose there is much chance of your admitting you were wrong about the jigsaw puzzles, but I  find it astonishing that you do not agree that someone would stand a better chance of making a suggestion about the picture with some pieces rather than with none.
even I, with my peripheral vision, would be able to make a suggestion which would have a greater probability of coming closer to the right answer if there were some pieces with colour on them.

I think what is being said was the jigsaw was poor analogy.

1. Hillside does not know how many pieces are in the jigsaw

2. Many components of intelligent systems are themselves what AI experts call 'Blackboxes'' in that no one is really sure what they do or how they work.

3. Hillside does not know what proportion of the unknown number of pieces he has.

4. An explanation with pieces missing is not a scientific explanation and alas becomes just another philosophical argument from/for physicalism.

[Stranger]

4. An explanation with pieces missing is not a scientific explanation...

Hang on, I just need to alert the media that Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity are not scientific explanations of how the universe works because there is a piece missing (how they join together).

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hang on, I just need to alert the media that Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity are not scientific explanations of how the universe works because there is a piece missing (how they join together).

 

You may imagine you are discussing how the universe works with me but that is clearly an illusion.

I look forward to you explaining how they fit in with neuroscience in anyway more significant than you are able to spell them.

[Stranger]

You may imagine you are discussing how the universe works with me but that is clearly an illusion.

I look forward to you explaining how they fit in with neuroscience in anyway more significant than you are able to spell them.

Is there a point in there somewhere, struggling to get out?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is there a point in there somewhere, struggling to get out?

There is but you obviously haven't got the intellect to see it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

I don't suppose there is much chance of your admitting you were wrong about the jigsaw puzzles, but I  find it astonishing that you do not agree that someone would stand a better chance of making a suggestion about the picture with some pieces rather than with none.
even I, with my peripheral vision, would be able to make a suggestion which would have a greater probability of coming closer to the right answer if there were some pieces with colour on them.

Quite – Gabriella seems to be so driven to indulge in ever more otiose micro-analyses of terms that it’s forcing her into ludicrous positions about the actual point of the discussion. Manifestly a jig-saw puzzle (or any other data environment) will be more likely to give you a better shot at identifying the more complete picture when you have some of the pieces than when you have none of them. It’s frankly bizarre to suggest otherwise. That was the point about scientific theories – however incomplete, generally they do at least have some data that can be built on to develop more robust theories. Not always of course – sometimes new information will arise that causes the theory to be junked entirely (as with the four humours idea of medicine) – but probabilistically some information is more likely to lead to more information than no information at all.     

This seems entirely uncontroversial to me as a proposition, and it’s why the findings of neuroscience in particular seem to me to be a better bet for understanding consciousness more fully than evidence- and logic-free speculations like “soul”, but that’s just me I guess.