Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Just to clarify, are you arguing that all choices are resolved based on a scale of emotional appeal? For example, my mind resolves the choice of rival options such as whether to be a theist or atheist using a scale of emotional appeal?

Yes, although we life to congratulate ourselves on being rational beings, we are really emotional beings and it is through our emotions ultimately that all choice is resolved. What shall I do next ? Whatever I most want to do. The limbic system, which mediates our emotions is a primordial ancient brain structure, common to all mammals, not just humans, that is how deep we have to go to understand this. The neocortex that humans evolved to support rational thought is a late comer, an addition to the fundamental base but we use that resource in the service of our underlying emotional needs.

Having said that, you make a good point about belief, and I think we cannot strictly speaking resolve abstract questions that have no emotional content on an emotional basis.  The answer to the question - do you believe .... to be correct - is a question of whether we find something to be convincing or not, and in this sense, these questions are not really choices.  I don't have any choice in whether I like marmite or not.  Our emotional centres are at play when there is a real choice to be made.

[wigginhall]

That reminds me of Hume, "reason is the slave of the passions".   More complicated than that, but our desires are not rationally arrived at.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We do not know how gravity works or how it originates - we just know it exists by what it does.  We experience it by observation.  It is not an illusion.

Wrong again. We have a working explanation for gravity that best accords with the observable facts. That’s why we call that explanation “science”.

That's not to say that at some future time the pixie conjecture could not be supported by evidence and thus become the prevailing explanatory theory, but it is to say that we have already a functional working explanation. That’s why we have no need at this time for pixies. 

We also have a working explanation for consciousness that best accords with the observable facts (ie, it’s an emergent property of brains). That's also not to say that at some future time the soul conjecture could not be supported by evidence and thus become the prevailing explanatory theory, but it is to say that we have already a functional working explanation. That’s why at this time we have no need for souls.

We do not know how an act of free will works or how it originates, but we know it exists because we can invoke it to do what we consciously choose to do.  Everyone experiences it.  It is not an illusion.

No-one says that the experience is illusory; what’s actually said is that the explanatory narrative you attach to it is illusory for the good reasons that there’s neither logic nor evidence to support it. Worse, it's logically incoherent.

Pixies are irrelevant.

Pixies are precisely relevant because the argument you try for souls lead equally to pixies:

1.   Assert that consciousness/”free” will cannot be natural phenomena.

2.   Provide neither reason nor evidence for the assertion.

3.   Install conjecture to explain away the supposed naturalistic impossibility of the phenomena – ie, soul/pixies respectively.

4.   Provide no evidence for or information about either conjecture.

5.   Never, ever engage honestly to questions and challenges about the soul/pixie conjectures.

6.   Repeat Step 1…   

[Alan Burns]

1.   Assert Conclude that consciousness/”free” will cannot be natural phenomena.

2.   Provide neither reason nor evidence for the assertion.Because conscious awareness and consciously driven choices are impossible to define by natural material reactions alone.

3.   Install conjecture to explain away the supposed naturalistic impossibility of the phenomena
not needed, see above.
4.   Provide no evidence for or information about either conjecture. Illustrate with numerous examples of creative thinking and inventive prose.

5.   Never, ever engage honestly to challenges and question about the soul/pixie conjectures. see above.

FIFY

[Roses]

FIFY

Just your opinion with no evidence to substantiate it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

1.   Conclude that consciousness/”free” will cannot be natural phenomena.

2.   Because conscious awareness and consciously driven choices are impossible to define by natural material reactions alone.

3.   not needed, see above.
4.    Illustrate with numerous examples of creative thinking and inventive prose.

5.    see above.
FIFY

Epic fail. First, “define” is the wrong word – you mean “explain”.

Second, lots of things can’t be “defined”/explained that you do accept as naturalistic. Why unilaterally carve out only consciousness for special treatment but not the rest?

What you’re struggling to articulate here is that some explanations we have for the phenomena we experience are incomplete. You then pick arbitrarily just one of them – consciousness – and decide that the incompleteness of the explanation must make it naturalistically impossible (a basic failure in reasoning). Then you populate the supposed space you’ve created with a conjecture that takes you fancy (“soul”) about which you have no definition, no explanation, no information, no means of investigation, no logically possible rationale, no anything (a string of failures in reasoning).

It’s embarrassingly inept as an argument, but as telling lies for Jesus is much more important to you than honest discussion you’ll never allow yourself to see why. Look, I'll show you by asking you a question you'll never answer: what makes you think that the incompleteness of an explanation for just one phenomenon renders is naturalistically impossible?

Cue tumbleweed...           

[SusanDoris]

It’s embarrassingly inept as an argument, but as telling lies for Jesus is much more important to you than honest discussion you’ll never allow yourself to see why. Look, I'll show you by asking you a question you'll never answer: what makes you think that the incompleteness of an explanation for just one phenomenon renders is naturalistically impossible?

Cue tumbleweed...         

It might, just  possibly, be not quite so bad if he didn't think he was so clever, and seems to believe he is outwitting  everybody else.

[Alan Burns]

Look, I'll show you by asking you a question you'll never answer: what makes you think that the incompleteness of an explanation for just one phenomenon renders is naturalistically impossible?
         

It is your opinion, and perhaps many others who wish to deny any possibility of spiritual power, that a physical explanation for conscious awareness is just incomplete, rather than impossible.  The presumption that the single entity of conscious awareness (you) can be generated by a collection of material reactions is optimistic in the extreme.  You may well be able to get a complex set of physical reactions to have the outward appearance of conscious awareness, but this will only be mimicking awareness, not creating it.  Internally it will just be a set of material elements reacting with each other - no internal awareness.  As with any other emergent property, it will only be perceived as an emergent property from outside observation, not from within.

[Gordon]

It is your opinion, and perhaps many others who wish to deny any possibility of spiritual power, that a physical explanation for conscious awareness is just incomplete, rather than impossible.  The presumption that the single entity of conscious awareness (you) can be generated by a collection of material reactions is optimistic in the extreme.  You may well be able to get a complex set of physical reactions to have the outward appearance of conscious awareness, but this will only be mimicking awareness, not creating it.  Internally it will just be a set of material elements reacting with each other - no internal awareness.  As with any other emergent property, it will only be perceived as an emergent property from outside observation, not from within.

Theobabble of the first magnitude.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, although we life to congratulate ourselves on being rational beings, we are really emotional beings and it is through our emotions ultimately that all choice is resolved. What shall I do next ? Whatever I most want to do. The limbic system, which mediates our emotions is a primordial ancient brain structure, common to all mammals, not just humans, that is how deep we have to go to understand this. The neocortex that humans evolved to support rational thought is a late comer, an addition to the fundamental base but we use that resource in the service of our underlying emotional needs.

Having said that, you make a good point about belief, and I think we cannot strictly speaking resolve abstract questions that have no emotional content on an emotional basis.  The answer to the question - do you believe .... to be correct - is a question of whether we find something to be convincing or not, and in this sense, these questions are not really choices.  I don't have any choice in whether I like marmite or not.  Our emotional centres are at play when there is a real choice to be made.

I think abstract questions such as belief have an emotional content. I have all the same reasons running through my head as to why there is no convincing argument for gods as I did when I was an atheist - the deciding factor at that time for being an atheist was I think that it was emotionally appealing, and now being a theist is more emotionally appealing.

But I think the way I reason, and the potential consequences I think about, and my hopes and aspirations for the future of my friends, family, the wider community and society as to what kind of a person I want to be and what kind of world I want to live in all has a major influence on my emotional response to belief or non-belief in the supernatural god concept. 

[torridon]

I think abstract questions such as belief have an emotional content. I have all the same reasons running through my head as to why there is no convincing argument for gods as I did when I was an atheist - the deciding factor at that time for being an atheist was I think that it was emotionally appealing, and now being a theist is more emotionally appealing.

But I think the way I reason, and the potential consequences I think about, and my hopes and aspirations for the future of my friends, family, the wider community and society as to what kind of a person I want to be and what kind of world I want to live in all has a major influence on my emotional response to belief or non-belief in the supernatural god concept.

I think that illustrates the multilayered complexity of human mind. Adopting a religion is a large and messy business compared to dispassionately evaluating a single point of epistemic truth.  Religions come with many cultural, psychological and social dimensions, all of which do have emotional content, you are buying into a whole way of life and the net effect is likely to be transformative. So, yes, I'd agree with you that such choices are shot through with emotional content and that helps determine the choice.   

[torridon]

It is your opinion, and perhaps many others who wish to deny any possibility of spiritual power, that a physical explanation for conscious awareness is just incomplete, rather than impossible.  The presumption that the single entity of conscious awareness (you) can be generated by a collection of material reactions is optimistic in the extreme.  You may well be able to get a complex set of physical reactions to have the outward appearance of conscious awareness, but this will only be mimicking awareness, not creating it.  Internally it will just be a set of material elements reacting with each other - no internal awareness.  As with any other emergent property, it will only be perceived as an emergent property from outside observation, not from within.

You fulfilled Blue's prediction here - sidestepping what he asked and proffering instead your own particular justification for spiritual awareness; all of which is really just one more exposition of your incredulity.  I cannot prove conclusively that you are not a zombie, but it is the reasonable conclusion; likewise we cannot prove that a robin is having inner mental experience but it is the reasonable assumption given it has the essential apparatus for awareness and seems to be aware of its surroundings.  There is nothing extremely optimistic about this, it is simply what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests and as honest reporters we should be following the evidence even if we don't yet fully understand it.

[Roses]

It is your opinion, and perhaps many others who wish to deny any possibility of spiritual power, that a physical explanation for conscious awareness is just incomplete, rather than impossible.  The presumption that the single entity of conscious awareness (you) can be generated by a collection of material reactions is optimistic in the extreme.  You may well be able to get a complex set of physical reactions to have the outward appearance of conscious awareness, but this will only be mimicking awareness, not creating it.  Internally it will just be a set of material elements reacting with each other - no internal awareness.  As with any other emergent property, it will only be perceived as an emergent property from outside observation, not from within.

You are the one who appears to be in denial, you won't face the possibility that you could be wrong.

[Alan Burns]

You fulfilled Blue's prediction here - sidestepping what he asked and proffering instead your own particular justification for spiritual awareness; all of which is really just one more exposition of your incredulity.  I cannot prove conclusively that you are not a zombie, but it is the reasonable conclusion; likewise we cannot prove that a robin is having inner mental experience but it is the reasonable assumption given it has the essential apparatus for awareness and seems to be aware of its surroundings.  There is nothing extremely optimistic about this, it is simply what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests and as honest reporters we should be following the evidence even if we don't yet fully understand it.

But my deductions cannot simply be written off as personal incredulity.

They are based on a realistic and logical appraisal of the limitations of what can be achieved by predetermined material reactions.  The presumption that material reactions can generate a single entity of awareness can be legitimately labelled as personal optimism, because we have no idea how it can possibly be achieved.  Looking at the outward appearance of a robin's behaviour tells us nothing about how conscious awareness works or what it comprises.

We know conscious awareness exists, just as we know that human freewill exists, and both remain impossible to define in material terms.

[Roses]

But my deductions cannot simply be written off as personal incredulity.

They are based on a realistic and logical appraisal of the limitations of what can be achieved by predetermined material reactions.  The presumption that material reactions can generate a single entity of awareness can be legitimately labelled as personal optimism, because we have no idea how it can possibly be achieved.  Looking at the outward appearance of a robin's behaviour tells us nothing about how conscious awareness works or what it comprises.

We know conscious awareness exists, just as we know that human freewill exists, and both remain impossible to define in material terms.

That is your opinion, but not held by most other posters on this forum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is your opinion, but not held by most other posters on this forum.

You are making a argumentum ad populum.
Now I have pointed out the failure of yet another of your arguments....you may now counter with inane use of smileys.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is your opinion, and perhaps many others who wish to deny any possibility of spiritual power, that a physical explanation for conscious awareness is just incomplete, rather than impossible.

No, it’s a fact. If you want to argue that something is impossible then the burden of proof is with you to explain why. I can list lots of phenomena for which the explanations we have so far are incomplete – why then select just one of them and assert the incompleteness of an explanation for that one alone to make it naturalistically impossible?

The presumption that the single entity of conscious awareness (you) can be generated by a collection of material reactions is optimistic in the extreme.

No, it’s consistent with the overwhelming body of evidence that supports it. If you want to ignore that and to conjure up instead a non-natural, then you have a mountain to climb to define and demonstrate such a thing even before you start to give it characteristics. Now that really is optimistic. 

You may well be able to get a complex set of physical reactions to have the outward appearance of conscious awareness, but this will only be mimicking awareness, not creating it. Internally it will just be a set of material elements reacting with each other - no internal awareness.

Is it safe to assume that, as ever, you have no argument of any kind to support this remarkable assertion?

Thought so.

As with any other emergent property, it will only be perceived as an emergent property from outside observation, not from within.

I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here. Emergent properties as a phenomenon demonstrably exist, and all the evidence to hand indicates that consciousness is one such property. There’s no fundamental reason for that not to be the case, and your rejection of it is just your incredulity again harnessed to protect a personal faith belief you happen to have. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But my deductions cannot simply be written off as personal incredulity.

Yes they can – that’s all you have.

They are based on a realistic and logical appraisal of the limitations of what can be achieved by predetermined material reactions.

Stop lying about that “predetermined”, and if you’ve made a “realistic and logical appraisal” then why have you never bothered to tell us what it is? You have no idea what can and cannot be achieved by emergent properties, especially those that arise from such unfathomably complex organs as brains. 

The presumption that material reactions can generate a single entity of awareness can be legitimately labelled as personal optimism, because we have no idea how it can possibly be achieved.  Looking at the outward appearance of a robin's behaviour tells us nothing about how conscious awareness works or what it comprises.

Not true. When we observe a robin we see that its behaviour is consistent with the models we have for naturalistic behaviour, as indeed are the behaviours of you and me. “A single entity of awareness” as you put it is just the emergence from a physical system of self-awareness – a remarkable thing indeed, but entirely consistent with the evidence we have.     

We know conscious awareness exists,…

Well, you had to get something righ eventually I guess...

…just as we know that human freewill exists,

If by “freewill” you mean your logically impossible version of it “we” know no such thing.

…and both remain impossible to define in material terms.

The first can be “defined” (ie, explained) in material terms, albeit that the explanation is currently incomplete. The latter can’t be defined in any terms of any kind because it’s an  incoherent mess of an idea. 

[torridon]

They are based on a realistic and logical appraisal of the limitations of what can be achieved by predetermined material reactions.  The presumption that material reactions can generate a single entity of awareness can be legitimately labelled as personal optimism, because we have no idea how it can possibly be achieved.  Looking at the outward appearance of a robin's behaviour tells us nothing about how conscious awareness works or what it comprises.

I don't get that.

What has 'personal optimism' got to do with anything ?  it is not about optimism it is about being true to evidence.  Your thinking seems entirely topsy turvy.  In BurnsWorld the logic seems to go that if it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck and looks like a duck, then it cannot possibly be a duck because we don't know anything at all about ducks.  Baffling.

How exactly do you imagine that robins manage to find their way around if they cannot see ? 

[torridon]

We know conscious awareness exists, just as we know that human freewill exists, and both remain impossible to define in material terms.

We don't know that freewill exists, that is merely your opinion, and in case you haven't noticed the several thousand posts on this thread about it, your claims are disputed by others.

[wigginhall]

There is plenty of research into brain processing of sound and vision.  Check out "postdiction", where both sounds and visual images are given to people, and they consistently make errors in perception, showing that the brain can be fooled.  More to the point, research like this shows how the brain processes incoming data.    What else would be doing it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

I don't get that.

What has 'personal optimism' got to do with anything ?  it is not about optimism it is about being true to evidence.  Your thinking seems entirely topsy turvy.  In BurnsWorld the logic seems to go that if it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck and looks like a duck, then it cannot possibly be a duck because we don't know anything at all about ducks.  Baffling.

How exactly do you imagine that robins manage to find their way around if they cannot see ?

But not baffling at all if you’ve decided a priori that there’s a god who makes ducks so you have to force reality to fit that belief. The double whammy is then to claim that reality thereby supports the notion of a duck-creating god.     

[Roses]

You are making a argumentum ad populum.
Now I have pointed out the failure of yet another of your arguments....you may now counter with inane use of smileys.

My dear, I take your points with a whole container of salt as they make so little sense!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

My dear, I take your points with a whole container of salt as they make so little sense!

He doesn't know what the ad populum argument is either.

[Alan Burns]

We don't know that freewill exists, that is merely your opinion, and in case you haven't noticed the several thousand posts on this thread about it, your claims are disputed by others.

Of course it exists.

The fact is that posters have had to use their freedom in order to choose to contradict me.

To presume that all our posts are entirely predetermined before we make them is total nonsense as it would render this forum to be meaningless.