Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

This is getting silly. This is what Alan did say:

The most obvious interpretation is that he thinks it does have a "remit" to deliver instinctive reactions. Otherwise they are a totally bizarre pair of statements.

If evolution has no remit at all, then it has no remit to produce instinctive reactions, yet obviously Alan thinks it did it anyway. In that case the second statement is irrelevant because evolution does things without remit.

If Alan wants to explain why he put those two statements together if he knew and understood that evolution has no remit to do anything, I'd love to hear it.

Alan is given to a putting things in a rather 'unorthodox' way, so I just assumed it was a case of that, and that this was just a statement that he thought evolution could produce instinctive reactions but not conscious choices, which is why I just asked him to back up his assertion.

You appear to have misinterpreted the meaning behind my post.

I fully agree that the process of evolution being driven by purposeless unguided forces has no conceivable remit to produce anything specific.

The point I was making is that instinctive reactions to environment are all you can expect from the unguided process of natural selection from random mutations acting on material elements.

[Gordon]

The point I was making is that instinctive reactions to environment are all you can expect from the unguided process of natural selection from random mutations acting on material elements.

Let me guess what comes next, Alan, when it comes to our species - therefore god!

It seems your trademark personal incredulity is never very far away.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You appear to have misinterpreted the meaning behind my post.

I fully agree that the process of evolution being driven by purposeless unguided forces has no conceivable remit to produce anything specific.

Evolution isn’t “driven” at all. There’s an explanatory logic for it that the theory of evolution sets out, but there’s no-one no thing doing any “driving”.

The point I was making is that instinctive reactions to environment are all you can expect from the unguided process of natural selection from random mutations acting on material elements.

That’s not a point, it’s an assertion and an empty one at that. It may not suit your religious convictions to assert that evolution could not produce consciousness, but that that’s all it is – assertion. 

[Stranger]

You appear to have misinterpreted the meaning behind my post.

I don't see how as what follows is pretty much what I said I thought you meant: "...this was just a statement that he thought evolution could produce instinctive reactions but not conscious choices, which is why I just asked him to back up his assertion."

The point I was making is that instinctive reactions to environment are all you can expect from the unguided process of natural selection from random mutations acting on material elements.

That's still the baseless assertion you need to back up.

[torridon]

You appear to have misinterpreted the meaning behind my post.

I fully agree that the process of evolution being driven by purposeless unguided forces has no conceivable remit to produce anything specific.

The point I was making is that instinctive reactions to environment are all you can expect from the unguided process of natural selection from random mutations acting on material elements.

Clearly incorrect and you have had this pointed out to you umpteen times already.  After all this time, you still do not understand that a brain is a learning system.  Instinctive behaviours are those essentially passed through DNA from parent to child.  But pretty much any species with a brain is more sophisticated and adaptable than that, each new individual learns new behaviours during its lifetime that add to its range of instinctive behaviours.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

Wrong again. Try reading what he did say - it's akin to, "Morris dancing doesn't have a remit to remove lost teeth, therefore the tooth fairy". Morris dancing doesn't have a remit of any kind so the argument is a priori redundant.   

This isn't difficult to grasp if you try, really it isn't.

Your patronising attitude doesn't disguise the fact that you are, again, completely missing the point. That no doubt is what Alan is saying, and it is indeed a dodgy argument, but he said that evolution does nothave a remit in one particular are, which does not imply that it does have a remit in other areas. If I said that I didn't have a degree in biology, it would be completely unwarranted to assume that I do have a degree in something else. (I do, but it doesn't follow.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Your patronising attitude doesn't disguise the fact that you are, again, completely missing the point.

Let’s see shall we?

That no doubt is what Alan is saying, and it is indeed a dodgy argument, but he said that evolution does nothave a remit in one particular are, which does not imply that it does have a remit in other areas.

Of course it implies that and, even if it didn’t, he’d then be stuck with the problem of tying together two entirely unrelated domains as if they had something to say to each other when he didn’t think that they did.

Either way, he loses.   

If I said that I didn't have a degree in biology, it would be completely unwarranted to assume that I do have a degree in something else. (I do, but it doesn't follow.)

Yes it would, but that has no relevance at all to what he attempted. A better analogy would be something like the one I gave you: “Morris dancing has no remit to remove lost teeth, therefore the tooth fairy”. Someone making that argument would clearly see a failure in the domain of Morris dancing as in some way relevant to validating the case for a tooth fairy, and if he didn’t think that then he’d just randomly be throwing together two unconnected concepts.

Again, either way he’d lose.

As I said, this isn’t difficult.     

[Gordon]

Your patronising attitude doesn't disguise the fact that you are, again, completely missing the point. That no doubt is what Alan is saying, and it is indeed a dodgy argument, but he said that evolution does nothave a remit in one particular are, which does not imply that it does have a remit in other areas. If I said that I didn't have a degree in biology, it would be completely unwarranted to assume that I do have a degree in something else. (I do, but it doesn't follow.)

Possibly the term 'remit' here could be replaced by 'role'.

Alan's position, and he can correct me if I've misunderstood his position, is that evolution has a role in the attributes of other species that he characterises as being only able to react instinctively rather than exercise choice. I'm not clear whether Alan sees evolution as having a role in some attributes of our species, such as sight, hearing, the endocrine system etc, where other species have these same attributes too, and of course some species have evolved with attributes we don't share.

What Alan can't conceive of is that the process of evolution could result in consciousness, the ability to choose and, probably, abstract thinking in humans: he sees these attributes as being unique to our species (they aren't) and evidence of divine purpose/design in our species only, in relation to which he thinks there was no role for evolution. This is, of course, where his personal incredulity kicks in: he can accept that evolution accounts for, say, echo-location in bats but not for abstract thinking in us humans since he can't envisage the latter could ever have occurred without the direct intervention of his god.

Hence his particular use of 'remit' really is code for divine intervention.   

[Stranger]

Your patronising attitude doesn't disguise the fact that you are, again, completely missing the point. That no doubt is what Alan is saying, and it is indeed a dodgy argument, but he said that evolution does nothave a remit in one particular are, which does not imply that it does have a remit in other areas. If I said that I didn't have a degree in biology, it would be completely unwarranted to assume that I do have a degree in something else. (I do, but it doesn't follow.)

But he didn't just say that evolution has no remit for conscious choices, as I pointed out in #34171, he said this:

The process of evolution would deliver the instinctive reactions needed to enhance survival.
But there is no remit in the evolutionary process to facilitate our conscious freedom to choose rather than just react.

If he understood that evolution had no remit for anything at all, then he admits in the first statement that it does things without remit, which makes the second a bizarre, meaningless, and senseless addition, and the whole post utterly pointless.

[Alan Burns]

.... each new individual learns new behaviours during its lifetime that add to its range of instinctive behaviours.

But whatever an individual learns during its lifetime does not get passed in its DNA to its offspring.
Modifications in DNA are produced by random copying errors - not by individual lifetime experiences.

[Alan Burns]

Possibly the term 'remit' here could be replaced by 'role'.

Alan's position, and he can correct me if I've misunderstood his position, is that evolution has a role in the attributes of other species that he characterises as being only able to react instinctively rather than exercise choice. I'm not clear whether Alan sees evolution as having a role in some attributes of our species, such as sight, hearing, the endocrine system etc, where other species have these same attributes too, and of course some species have evolved with attributes we don't share.

What Alan can't conceive of is that the process of evolution could result in consciousness, the ability to choose and, probably, abstract thinking in humans: he sees these attributes as being unique to our species (they aren't) and evidence of divine purpose/design in our species only, in relation to which he thinks there was no role for evolution. This is, of course, where his personal incredulity kicks in: he can accept that evolution accounts for, say, echo-location in bats but not for abstract thinking in us humans since he can't envisage the latter could ever have occurred without the direct intervention of his god.

Hence his particular use of 'remit' really is code for divine intervention.   

I think you have summed this up quite well, Gordon.
Apart from substituting physical impossibility for personal incredulity.

[Stranger]

Apart from substituting physical impossibility for personal incredulity.

Another totally unsupported assertion.   

You have presented absolutely nothing but incredulity to back up this claim of impossibility...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think you have summed this up quite well, Gordon.
Apart from substituting physical impossibility for personal incredulity.

Except of course that your un-argued, un-evidenced, un-supported assertion "physical impossibility" in precisely an expression of your personal incredulity.

Apart from that though...

[torridon]

But whatever an individual learns during its lifetime does not get passed in its DNA to its offspring.
Modifications in DNA are produced by random copying errors - not by individual lifetime experiences.

Yes, and that is why creatures with complex behaviours all have brains; complex behaviours are way too large in information terms to be encoded onto the structure of an acid molecule, so offspring are born with a learning brain and an instinct to learn from their parents and peers.  No creature would survive on inherited instincts alone.

[torridon]

I think you have summed this up quite well, Gordon.
Apart from substituting physical impossibility for personal incredulity.

.. which substitution would be quite baseless.  Just because you find it difficult, doesn't mean it is impossible.  Bald assertions will never be a match for honest investigation and evidence based reasoning.

[jeremyp]

I know from experience that BH appears never to admit to being wrong on this forum. 

Can you give examples of you admitting to being wrong? Or me or any other member of this forum?

[jeremyp]

But that would be outside of evolution, and Alan said that evolution has no remit etc.

No he didn't. He said it has no remit to do one specific thing. He actually said nothing one way or the other about whether evolution has any other remits.

It wouldn't kill the non-believers on here to occasionally admit that someone who disagrees with them has a point, and admit that they were wrong - and before the usual suspect weighs in with an adolescent sarcastic comment about pots and kettles, I have done so in the past.

What point did AB have? He said that evolution doesn't have a remit to produce conscious organisms. That is something that non believers came to terms with almost as soon as they grokked evolution. That Alan thinks it is an argument for his point of view is laughable.

[jeremyp]

I recall offering apologies on at least three occasions when I have discovered that I was wrong in what I have said.

You've made 6,767 posts as I write this. You are claiming you admitted to mistakes in three of them, or 0.04%.

[Alan Burns]

.. which substitution would be quite baseless.  Just because you find it difficult, doesn't mean it is impossible.  Bald assertions will never be a match for honest investigation and evidence based reasoning.

It is not exactly a bald assertion though.

As yourself, BH and Stranger have shown, human investigation coupled with evidence based reasoning leads to the conclusion that every consciously driven choice we make has already been predetermined before we are consciously aware of it.  Yet the actual conscious choices humans make would appear to contradict this conclusion by showing clear evidence of choices which are not entirely predetermined by past events.

So how can you be sure that human investigation coupled with your evidence based reasoning has lead you to the correct conclusion?  Is there evidence which you may have ignored or dismissed for your own consciously chosen reasons?

Are you confident that you can convince highly intelligent people that every consciously driven choice they make has already been predetermined before they are consciously aware of it?

[Stranger]

As yourself, BH and Stranger have shown, human investigation coupled with evidence based reasoning leads to the conclusion that every consciously driven choice we make has already been predetermined before we are consciously aware of it.

You really are very confused. Logic alone tells us that either everything is determined by what led up to it or, to the extent it isn't, it involves randomness. You know, the logic you have never once had the courage to even try to address directly.

Yet the actual conscious choices humans make would appear to contradict this conclusion...

No, they don't.

...by showing clear evidence of choices which are not entirely predetermined by past events.

What evidence?

[SteveH]

Everyone whose brains haven't been addled by reading too much philosophidiocy knows perfectly well that humans can make conscious choices. Where that ability comes from can be debated, but the ability itself is a given.

[SusanDoris]

It is not exactly a bald assertion though.

As yourself, BH and Stranger have shown, human investigation coupled with evidence based reasoning leads to the conclusion that every consciously driven choice we make has already been predetermined before we are consciously aware of it.  Yet the actual conscious choices humans make would appear to contradict this conclusion by showing clear evidence of choices which are not entirely predetermined by past events.

One of the most annoying things about your posts is that you keep on saing ENTIRELY pre-determined. If every decision was entirely pre-determined, then there would be no cause and effect,no thinking, no progress, etc. Everyone would simply be following a complete, unalterable plan laid down since before life started and goes on ad infinitum.
I hope other posters, whose wellexpressed and thoughtful posts and explanations you persistently ignore, will correct me on this where necessary. I for one listen to what they say.

So how can you be sure that human investigation coupled with your evidence based reasoning has lead you to the correct conclusion? 

Who has ever stated that the conclusions are always the "correct" ones? Where is the answer book with the *correct* answers in?

Is there evidence which you may have ignored or dismissed for your own consciously chosen reasons?
Are you confident that you can convince highly intelligent people that every consciously driven choice they make has already been predetermined before they are consciously aware of it?

This last point has been explained to you over and over again. Are you proud of your ignoring of it?

[Stranger]

Everyone whose brains haven't been addled by reading too much philosophidiocy knows perfectly well that humans can make conscious choices. Where that ability comes from can be debated, but the ability itself is a given.

That's beside the point because it says absolutely nothing about whether the process of making a conscious choice is deterministic or not. If not, then logically the only alternative is that it involves some randomness.

Something that isn't fully determined by its antecedents must involve, so some extent, something that isn't determined by anything, which is what randomness means.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not exactly a bald assertion though.

Yes it is. If you seriously think that consciousness arising naturally is “physically impossible” then the burden of proof is all yours to demonstrate that claim. So far though, all you’ve done is to assert it.

As yourself, BH and Stranger have shown, human investigation coupled with evidence based reasoning leads to the conclusion that every consciously driven choice we make has already been predetermined before we are consciously aware of it.

At least down to the quantum level, essentially yes.

Yet the actual conscious choices humans make would appear to contradict this conclusion by showing clear evidence of choices which are not entirely predetermined by past events.

Lots of things “appear” to be a certain way, and provided you don’t think too hard about them those appearances give us a certain view of reality. When you do think about them though it quickly becomes apparent that appearances can very often be deceptive.   

So how can you be sure that human investigation coupled with your evidence based reasoning has lead you to the correct conclusion?

You can’t be “sure” of anything if by that you mean 100% certain, but you can follow the available reasoning and evidence that points to a provisional conclusion. That’s why we think that thunder for example is caused by natural forces and not by Thor.     

Is there evidence which you may have ignored or dismissed for your own consciously chosen reasons?

No. There might be evidence that hasn’t been brought to “our” attention, but that’s a different matter. To my knowledge no theist – least of all you – has ever produced any evidence for his beliefs at all. That’s why they rely of “faith” – which is epistemologically indistinguishable from just guessing.   

Are you confident that you can convince highly intelligent people that every consciously driven choice they make has already been predetermined before they are consciously aware of it?

Yes, but that’s not the point. Rather the point is about the burden of proof – you’re the one who asserts naturalistic consciousness to be physically impossible, so it’s entirely your job to do the convincing. So far though your just asserting it is hopeless for that purpose.

That’s your problem.

[torridon]

It is not exactly a bald assertion though.

As yourself, BH and Stranger have shown, human investigation coupled with evidence based reasoning leads to the conclusion that every consciously driven choice we make has already been predetermined before we are consciously aware of it.  Yet the actual conscious choices humans make would appear to contradict this conclusion by showing clear evidence of choices which are not entirely predetermined by past events. 

So how can you be sure that human investigation coupled with your evidence based reasoning has lead you to the correct conclusion?  Is there evidence which you may have ignored or dismissed for your own consciously chosen reasons?

Are you confident that you can convince highly intelligent people that every consciously driven choice they make has already been predetermined before they are consciously aware of it?

I can't speak for others but I've never claimed that our choices are 'entirely predetermined'.  Predeterminism is not the same as determinism. I don't think we can say predetermined because at the very least we cannot confidently discount the possibility of genuine randomness.  But it is reasonable to observe that a meaningful choice is necessarily contingent upon the factors that gave rise to it.  If you claim that a choice is resolved in the absence of any reason then you are claiming that your choice is random.  Not me.  You.  it is your own claims that contradict themselves.  To be 'free' of determinism means random.  To resolve choice in a way that is 'free' of any determining factor would be merely a random meaningless event, by definition.

For myself I have no terror in recognising that there are reasons for my choices, it is consistent with the broader understanding that our reality works on principals that seem logical.  In making a choice, I choose the option that most appeals to me, I am expressing my preference, but i cannot choose which preference to have in the first place.  The idea that we could choose our preferences would yield a nonsensical meaningless world.  It makes absolutely no sense.