Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

All your arguments for consciousness as it is merely explain mechanisms of intelligence. You could be describing a sophisticated unconscious and unselfaware machine rather than human awareness. Therefore in your schemes human awareness, the thing experienced is a mysterious bolt on or in Ockham terms an entity introduced beyond necessity to the argument you are making. Even declaring it an illusion is multiplying beyond necessity.

I don't see your problem.  Awareness in humans is a variation on awareness in other species and that originated in the need to integrate awareness of self (via a central nervous system) with awareness of external surroundings (via modal senses).  Humans have evolved greater intelligence and capacities for language and abstraction; other creatures have evolved entirely different forms of awareness.  All species have minds honed to deal with the particularities of their ecological niche.  I don't see any 'bolt-on'.  The 'thing experienced' is the information flow through the mind of the individual, whether it be a human or an octopus or a tree frog.

[torridon]

It is not exactly a watertight answer is it?
In order to fit reality into your theoretical logic you must bring yourself to admit that you have no conscious control over what you say.  But I fail to see how you can claim to have freedom to choose if you have no conscious control over what you do.  The point I made was that I am held to be personally responsible for my supposed assertions, dishonesty, ...  etc, yet your logical analysis implies that I have no conscious control over what I am being accused of.  You can't have it both ways.  You need to come to terms with the obvious truth that our freedom to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions is real.  This freedom allows us to consciously "cherry pick" from our lifetime of experience, nature, and nurture in choosing what to do.

You're still not getting that there are different levels of conceptualisation wherever emergence is involved, and mind is a particularly complex example of emergence. Apparently forgetting that 'conscious control', for example,  is an emergent phenomenon deriving from preconscious subliminal states of mind, you are still playing the role of innocent fruit and veg seller insisting to the physicist that he can in fact make two apples touch by simply pushing them together.  In that case, it is physics that gives us the more profound understanding of reality; in the case of mind, the sciences of the mind reveal a more profound and far reaching understanding underlying our everyday experience of life.  You keep forgetting to factor these insights in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see your problem.  Awareness in humans is a variation on awareness in other species and that originated in the need to integrate awareness of self (via a central nervous system) with awareness of external surroundings (via modal senses).  Humans have evolved greater intelligence and capacities for language and abstraction; other creatures have evolved entirely different forms of awareness.  All species have minds honed to deal with the particularities of their ecological niche.  I don't see any 'bolt-on'.  The 'thing experienced' is the information flow through the mind of the individual, whether it be a human or an octopus or a tree frog.

So consciousness is the information flow through the mind of an individual.
My Computer has information flowing through its circuitry. And that is known because there is a little man sitting watching it making sense of the information. So the computer or frog is experiencing what i'm experiencing? How do you know?and if you don't know how can you declare that 'the thing experienced is the information flow'....and in your scheme the computer is self aware. Indeed you seem to be suggesting that you cannot have computation or even information flow without consciousness.

Your arguments are not thence free of 'Bob's your uncle' step leaping.

What you are arguing does not then add up to self awareness but merely intelligence and therefore self awareness is a bolt on.

[Stranger]

It is not exactly a watertight answer is it?

You are advocating an impossible, self-contradictory idea for which you have bugger all evidence and no reasoned arguments and you say what I've said isn't watertight! The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

In order to fit reality into your theoretical logic you must bring yourself to admit that you have no conscious control over what you say.

Drivel - I have admitted no such thing. This has been explained to you so many times now - why won't you pay attention?

But I fail to see how you can claim to have freedom to choose if you have no conscious control over what you do.  The point I made was that I am held to be personally responsible for my supposed assertions, dishonesty, ...  etc, yet your logical analysis implies that I have no conscious control over what I am being accused of.  You can't have it both ways.

I'm not having it both ways. You do have conscious control (how many more times do I need to say this before it sinks in?) but that consciousness has to arrive at its choices somehow and it must do so either entirely because of pre-existing reasons or not, and the inescapable conclusion if not, is that some part of the choice is for no reason and therefore random.

You need to come to terms with the obvious truth that our freedom to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions is real.  This freedom allows us to consciously "cherry pick" from our lifetime of experience, nature, and nurture in choosing what to do.

Yes - and either you do the cherry-picking entirely because of reasons that existed prior to the choice (predetermined) or not (partly random).

I do not dispute that you make conscious choices - please stop pretending that that is what we disagree about.

Why does everybody have to repeat themselves so often in this discussion? Why won't you have the common decency to pay attention to the answers you are getting rather than just ignore them?

[ekim]

1)  I'm not sure you are using the word 'determinism' in the way that I'm using it, Ekim. By determinism I mean that all actions are the result of causes. Hence, even if one feels free from any attachments, there still have to be underlying causes for any action undertaken. The alternative view is that there are no underlying causes, which means that any action taken is purely random.

2) I doubt that you are simple minded, Ekim.    However I see the word 'want' in a much more expansive way than you. For me 'want' covers anything one might desire at any given moment, whether it be searching for an appropriate word for this post or whether the need for a drink because one is thirsty. Hence, the desire to be free of all these 'wants' is still a 'want'. I am, of course, very happy to accept that these wants may also surface wihin the sub conscious/unconscious, such that many times we are not actually aware of why we decided upon a particular action.

Yes, I don't disagree with what you say as you have applied it to actions, and, the thinking, reasoning, rationalising mind is probably our most active asset and as such will actively interpret accordingly.  What about if the goal is stillness rather than actions?  You could say I desire or am determined to attain inner stillness but that determination or desire is likely to be counter productive until it is dropped.  The end result has been called 'the peace that passeth understanding' amongst other expressions, perhaps because to analyse it, think about it or discuss it's origin can result in a paradise lost.  The word 'random' is sometimes supplanted by 'spontaneous', 'the grace of God' or 'sudden realisation, a revelation' perhaps to imply that it is not as a result of egotistical determination.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Yes, I don't disagree with what you say as you have applied it to actions, and, the thinking, reasoning, rationalising mind is probably our most active asset and as such will actively interpret accordingly.  What about if the goal is stillness rather than actions?  You could say I desire or am determined to attain inner stillness but that determination or desire is likely to be counter productive until it is dropped.  The end result has been called 'the peace that passeth understanding' amongst other expressions, perhaps because to analyse it, think about it or discuss it's origin can result in a paradise lost.  The word 'random' is sometimes supplanted by 'spontaneous', 'the grace of God' or 'sudden realisation, a revelation' perhaps to imply that it is not as a result of egotistical determination.

Which is all very lovely no doubt, but there's nothing egotistical about determinism - it's just a description of what happens. Sorry.

[Alan Burns]

I'm not having it both ways. You do have conscious control (how many more times do I need to say this before it sinks in?)

from #31926:
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).

make up your mind!

[Stranger]

make up your mind!

Oh FFS, Alan, seriously?

The second quote was specifically about what occurs to me while thinking about something.  Are you going to claim that you can consciously observe the entire contents of your mind and all your lifetime of memories and experiences and decide what is going to occur to you during the time you write your reply? That wouldn't even make sense as it would mean absolutely everything occurs to you all the time. Perhaps you will also claim that every single possible phrasing of a reply is available for you to consciously choose between all of them? Maybe you'll claim that you've never in your life thought of a better way to put something after it's too late?

It is very frustrating trying to have a sensible discussion with you because you don't seen to pay any attention to what is said to you.

What do you think the point of this is if you can't be arsed to even read and understand the replies you're getting? Do you think anybody is going to listen to your preaching if it is repeatedly demolished by others and you're obviously unable or unwilling to even think about it and respond?

[Sebastian Toe]

make up your mind!

Can your soul count?

[Alan Burns]

I don't see your problem.  Awareness in humans is a variation on awareness in other species and that originated in the need to integrate awareness of self (via a central nervous system) with awareness of external surroundings (via modal senses).  Humans have evolved greater intelligence and capacities for language and abstraction; other creatures have evolved entirely different forms of awareness.  All species have minds honed to deal with the particularities of their ecological niche.  I don't see any 'bolt-on'.  The 'thing experienced' is the information flow through the mind of the individual, whether it be a human or an octopus or a tree frog.

But you seem to equate instinctive animal reactions with human conscious perception.
Animals may be programmed to react to the information contained in their physical brain cells without any need to consciously perceive it before reacting.

Conscious perception is not defined by reaction.  It is simply awareness of information.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But you seem to equate instinctive animal reactions with human conscious perception.

Presumably because “instinctive animal reactions” is just something else you’ve made up and stick the label “fact” to. Many other species exhibit precisely the behaviours that you call “conscious awareness” – forward planning, reward deferment, tool-making, organised hunting and care of the young, finding novel solutions to new problems etc. Our species happens to be the most sophisticated at it that we know of, but a rocket to the moon and a tool for extracting grubs from tree bark are on the same spectrum. 

Animals may be programmed to react to the information contained in their physical brain cells without any need to consciously perceive it before reacting.

Except that “to be programmed” would require someone or something to do the programming, whereas using their intelligence and awareness to develop solutions of their own requires significantly fewer assumptions.

Conscious perception is not defined by reaction.  It is simply awareness of information.

“Conscious perception” may be defined in any number of ways, but you have no logical or evidential basis of any kind to grant it to one species and to deny it to others. 

[torridon]

So consciousness is the information flow through the mind of an individual.
My Computer has information flowing through its circuitry. And that is known because there is a little man sitting watching it making sense of the information. So the computer or frog is experiencing what i'm experiencing? How do you know?and if you don't know how can you declare that 'the thing experienced is the information flow'....and in your scheme the computer is self aware. Indeed you seem to be suggesting that you cannot have computation or even information flow without consciousness.

Your arguments are not thence free of 'Bob's your uncle' step leaping.

What you are arguing does not then add up to self awareness but merely intelligence and therefore self awareness is a bolt on.

Current computers are not self aware, clearly, far from it.  The information flows in your laptop were never designed to achieve consciousness, they were designed for far simpler tasks.  They might be in the future, at some point, we have not discovered anything magical about carbon compounds such that they alone can support phenomenology.  Biology shows how nature has achieved consciousness using the 'hardware' of neurons and axons and dendrites and so forth; we will undoubtedly mimic that through research in artificial intelligence, and eventually improve on it.  That is what humans do, observe what nature has done, and replicate it.

[Gordon]

But you seem to equate instinctive animal reactions with human conscious perception.
Animals may be programmed to react to the information contained in their physical brain cells without any need to consciously perceive it before reacting.

On what basis do you know this in respect of all species?

Conscious perception is not defined by reaction.  It is simply awareness of information.

Says who: who is doing the defining here?

Perhaps you could clearly explain the relationship between perception, reaction and awareness: you've packed these three terms into two short sentences and I'd like to be reassured that you aren't oversimplifying.

[torridon]

But you seem to equate instinctive animal reactions with human conscious perception.
Animals may be programmed to react to the information contained in their physical brain cells without any need to consciously perceive it before reacting.

Conscious perception is not defined by reaction.  It is simply awareness of information.

We have conscious perception because we inherited it through evolution.  It is ancient in origin, at least 500 million years old.  Conscious perception is the ability to see, hear, feel etc through sense organs. All creatures with eyes can see, not just humans. All creatures with ears can hear, not just humans.  Am I really having to explain this 

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

Am I really having to explain this

It's Alan, so yes.

[Alan Burns]

We have conscious perception because we inherited it through evolution. 

Not proven
We do not know what comprises a conscious entity of perception or how it works, therefore we can't automatically assume it was capable of being created by physical mutations.

It is ancient in origin, at least 500 million years old.

Not in the case of human conscious perception.

Conscious perception is the ability to see, hear, feel etc through sense organs.

It is awareness of the information provided by these organs.  It is not reaction to it.

All creatures with eyes can see, not just humans. All creatures with ears can hear, not just humans. 

Creatures may well react to the information provided through sense organs, but reaction alone is not proof of conscious perception.

[torridon]

Not proven
We do not know what comprises a conscious entity of perception or how it works, therefore we can't automatically assume it was capable of being created by physical mutations.Not in the case of human conscious perception.It is awareness of the information provided by these organs.  It is not reaction to it.Creatures may well react to the information provided through sense organs, but reaction alone is not proof of conscious perception.

Science doesn't deal in proofs.  You really ought to understand this by now. It deals with evidence.  If we observe a rabbit scuttling down its burrow to escape the fox chasing it, that doesn't prove it has seen its predator and taken evasive action, but that is what the evidence suggests and in the absence of any other explanatory model, we accept that it is perception and response at work in rabbits.  Likewise we cannot prove that human consciousness evolved from prior forms of consciousness in our ancestors, but that is what the evidence suggests.  In the real world, we cannot but follow the evidence, but if we put blinkers on out of a dogmatic belief that some or other phenomenon such as consciousness is too hard to understand and therefore must be magic, we mount a spurious barrier to the spirit of enquiry that is central to what it is to be human.

[SusanDoris]

AB

I note you still have not answered Sebastian Toe's question: Can your soul count?

Please do so.

[Stranger]

We do not know what comprises a conscious entity of perception or how it works, therefore we can't automatically assume it was capable of being created by physical mutations.

Neither can you assume that it isn't, and all the evidence we have is that consciousness did evolve.

BTW are you actually going to acknowledge that you misunderstood what I clearly said in your post #32081 and that you now understand that I do think we have the ability to consciously make choices? Just for once perhaps we could actually move this discussion forward and not have to go back over it all over again?

[Gordon]

It is awareness of the information provided by these organs.  It is not reaction to it.

Says who? 
 

Creatures may well react to the information provided through sense organs, but reaction alone is not proof of conscious perception.

Says who?

[Alan Burns]

AB

I note you still have not answered Sebastian Toe's question: Can your soul count?

Please do so.

I considered it to be a trivial question.
Counting obviously requires the God given properties of conscious awareness and freewill in order to initiate and carry out the counting process.  It also requires information provided from our human sense organs.  So it is a combined effort.

[Alan Burns]

Neither can you assume that it isn't, and all the evidence we have is that consciousness did evolve.

BTW are you actually going to acknowledge that you misunderstood what I clearly said in your post #32081 and that you now understand that I do think we have the ability to consciously make choices? Just for once perhaps we could actually move this discussion forward and not have to go back over it all over again?

Sorry, but I have to say that I cannot see how anyone can have the freedom to make a consciously driven choice if the result is entirely predefined by events over which we can have no control.  Your explanation makes no sense. 

[ekim]

ekim,

Which is all very lovely no doubt, but there's nothing egotistical about determinism - it's just a description of what happens. Sorry.

No need to be sorry.  I don't get offended by replies to my posts.  My post was in the context of Enki's statement 'By determinism I mean that all actions are the result of causes.' which I agreed with.  Egotistical determination was another way of saying selfishly motivated causes which determine actions, which are not difficult to see in the world in which we live.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Is there any point in correcting you again on this as it’s been done so often already only for you to ignore the corrections you’ve been given?

(Wearily) yes you can “have it both ways” because the freedom we use on a day-to-day basis is a construct that’s useful for things like ordinary social exchanges and court cases but it does not for one moment indicate, imply or suggest some sort of ultimate freedom untethered from both determinism and randomness. Remember the goldfish? Whatever a goldfish’s reality is it functions quite readily without having any idea of a reality going on under the table.

That’s your reality too, as you’d know if you tried to think about it: you function quite happily with the perception of "freedom" (as do we all), but that tells you nothing whatever about the deeper explanations that aren’t immediately apparent.   

Two points:
I have never claimed that our ability to choose is free from determinism, so please stop misrepresenting what I say.  My claim is that our choices need to be sourced from something other than physically predefined events in order to enable the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices.

Your goldfish bowl analogy can aptly illustrate the shortsighted human view of our universe.  To the goldfish, the universe appears to be entirely comprised of water, so it is a logical presumption that the food which periodically appears must somehow be generated from the water, even though there is no explanation for how it happens.

[Stranger]

Sorry, but I have to say that I cannot see how anyone can have the freedom to make a consciously driven choice if the result is entirely predefined by events over which we can have no control.  Your explanation makes no sense.

Firstly, I know you disagree but do you acknowledge that I am not saying we can't consciously choose? I am in no way denying our ability the think things through and come to a conclusion.

Secondly, it's incredible that you accuse me of making no sense when your idea of freedom is obviously self-contradictory.

Why aren't you actually addressing the reasons your idea makes no sense? It's been explained often enough by several people but you never address it. Even when you start a post with the claim that my arguments are flawed, you never point out the flaw, just restate your own position. It's like "you must be wrong because I'm right", it gets us nowhere.

It is wrong to say that the result isn't under our control. How many times do you need this explaining? Nothing can be under our control unless we want to do one thing rather than another. That want must either be due to reasons, that is the person we are, our life of experience, and state of mind, or, to the extent they are not, they must be for no reason (random). For something to be in control, it has to be capable of coherently forming wants and opinions and randomness (stuff that is not due to pre-existing reasons) cannot make it free.

Just for once, address that, go on!