Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

If you can't, as you say,  'presume awareness unless you have a definition of what comprises awareness and how it works' then you can't, as you've often done, simply assume that other species with similar biology to ours, such as other primates, aren't 'aware' - can you!

I cannot say for certain whether God has given other species the gift of internal conscious awareness.  My assumptions about other animals are based on my observation that their behaviour is instinctive and predictable, indicating to me that whatever awareness they have does not generate the freedom to consciously choose which we experience as humans.

In essence I am saying that you cannot use observations of animal behaviour to prove or disprove the nature of our own self awareness or our freedom to make consciously driven choices.

[Sebastian Toe]

You can't presume awareness unless you have a definition of what comprises awareness and how it works. 

Is there a definition of what comprises a soul and how it works?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes.
Your opening phrase "We see emergent properties ..." is the clue.  It indicates that all emergent properties only exist as a labelled property in our conscious perception.  We perceive a specific functionality or pattern in our observation of physical reactions occurring elsewhere and give it a label.  This is a million miles away from being able to explain the internal awareness we perceive as human beings.

That's bizarre even for you. Would you say that if, say, there was another planet in our solar system that hadn't been discovered it can't exist at all because no-one had seem it? Either you think there to be an objective, "out there" world or you don't. If you do, emergent properties will be there whether we see them or not; if you don't you're in full blown Bishop Berkely territory.         

[Gordon]

I cannot say for certain whether God has given other species the gift of internal conscious awareness.

More begging the question.

My assumptions about other animals are based on my observation that their behaviour is instinctive and predictable, indicating to me that whatever awareness they have does not generate the freedom to consciously choose which we experience as humans.

However, you might be wrong, and especially so since your assumptions seem to be based on your religious faith - so we can dismiss your assumptions as being an argument from ignorance.

In essence I am saying that you cannot use observations of animal behaviour to prove or disprove the nature of our own self awareness or our freedom to make consciously driven choices.

Sounds like you've become your own authority in cross-species neurology and psychology - not sure your faith is a relevant qualification for your self-appointed role.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You need a basic grounding in logic to see where you’ve gone wrong again. The argumentum ad consequentiam is the fallacy that a premise must be wrong when it leads to a conclusion you find undesirable. When you start a post with, “but if X, then Y…” when “Y” is just something you don’t like then you’re committing the fallacy.

But if "Y" is not a valid logical conclusion, regardless of whether is is liked or not, then it is not a fallacy to say that it is wrong, and why it is wrong.

It is your opinion that my personal desires are the reasoning behind my arguments.  But I have to disagree.

My conclusions are logically derived, based on my perception of human nature, and if you personally do not like my conclusions, or their consequences, then it is you who are guilty of fallacy by ignoring or trying to ridicule my logic because you do not like my conclusions.

[Gordon]

My conclusions are logically derived, based on my perception of human nature, and if you personally do not like my conclusions, or their consequences, then it is you who are guilty of fallacy by ignoring or trying to ridicule my logic because you do not like my conclusions.

You are a logic-free zone, Alan, since your 'perception of human nature' includes an illogical version of 'free will' and some form of supernatural agent interacting with our brains, about which you can say nothing meaningful.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's bizarre even for you. Would you say that if, say, there was another planet in our solar system that hadn't been discovered it can't exist at all because no-one had seem it? Either you think there to be an objective, "out there" world or you don't. If you do, emergent properties will be there whether we see them or not; if you don't you're in full blown Bishop Berkely territory.       

The material reactions will obviously be there whether we see them or not.  But our perception of them as specific patterns or recognised functionality will only exist in our minds.  Outside human perception all is just material reaction.  And I repeat that externally observed functionality is a million miles away from being able to explain internal conscious perception.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if "Y" is not a valid logical conclusion, regardless of whether is is liked or not, then it is not a fallacy to say that it is wrong, and why it is wrong.

Except “Y” (god”, “soul” etc) aren’t logical conclusions at all – they’re faith beliefs. And when you dismiss an argument because it contradicts one of those faith beliefs then you’re committing the argumentum ad consequentiam. It’s simple enough I’d have thought.     

It is your opinion that my personal desires are the reasoning behind my arguments.  But I have to disagree.

You’re entitled to disagree if you want to – for all I know you do have some cogent arguments for your faith beliefs (ie, the “faith” bit is redundant because you have logic and even evidence to support you) only you’ve chosen to keep those things secret here. On the evidence of what you have said though, your “personal desires” are all you have and you’ll defend them to the end no matter how broken the arguments and dishonest the effort.   

My conclusions are logically derived,…

Not so far they’re not.

…based on my perception of human nature,…

Your “perception of human nature” isn’t evidence in any objective sense – it’s just a narrative you tell yourself that you find comforting because it supports your religious beliefs.
 

..and if you personally do not like my conclusions, or their consequences, then it is you who are guilty of fallacy by ignoring or trying to ridicule my logic because you do not like my conclusions.

Whether I like them or not is irrelevant, and I don’t need to “ridicule your logic”. What I actually need to do is to falsify it, something that’s trivially easy to do.

That’s your problem – your attempts at logic are hopeless.

[Alan Burns]

You are a logic-free zone, Alan, since your 'perception of human nature' includes an illogical version of 'free will' and some form of supernatural agent interacting with our brains, about which you can say nothing meaningful.

But without this supernatural agent interacting with our brains, how could anything be deemed meaningful if we are all driven by the uncontrollable reactions of material elements with no freedom to control what we do, think or say?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The material reactions will obviously be there whether we see them or not.  But our perception of them as specific patterns or recognised functionality will only exist in our minds.  Outside human perception all is just material reaction.  And I repeat that externally observed functionality is a million miles away from being able to explain internal conscious perception.

Wrong again. Whether we're there to look at them or not birds will flock, tides will ebb and flow, termites will build mounds.

Deal with it. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But without this supernatural agent interacting with our brains, how could anything be deemed meaningful if we are all driven by the uncontrollable reactions of material elements with no freedom to control what we do, think or say?

Argument from personal incredulity with an argumentum ad consequentiam thrown in too.

You just can't help yourself can you.

[Alan Burns]

Your “perception of human nature” isn’t evidence in any objective sense – it’s just a narrative you tell yourself that you find comforting because it supports your religious beliefs.
 

As I have previously indicated, my arguments to not start with a presumption of God.

They start with my perception of my own existence, and in particular my ability to consciously perceive and interact with the environment I exist in.  My ability to make make consciously driven choices and drive my own thought processes is a reality - not just a desirable conclusion made up to verify God's existence.

[Gordon]

But without this supernatural agent interacting with our brains, how could anything be deemed meaningful if we are all driven by the uncontrollable reactions of material elements with no freedom to control what we do, think or say?

Doubly fallacious: well done you!

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong again. Whether we're there to look at them or not birds will flock, tides will ebb and flow, termites will build mounds.

Deal with it.

As I said, the concepts of "flock", "ebb and flow" and "(ventilated) mounds" are human labels which we give to external observations of recognisable patterns or functionality existing in material elements under the control of natural forces.  Such external recognition offers no possible explanation for what comprises internal self awareness or how it works.

[Roses]

But without this supernatural agent interacting with our brains, how could anything be deemed meaningful if we are all driven by the uncontrollable reactions of material elements with no freedom to control what we do, think or say?

Natural without the 'super', imo.

[torridon]

I cannot say for certain whether God has given other species the gift of internal conscious awareness.  My assumptions about other animals are based on my observation that their behaviour is instinctive and predictable, indicating to me that whatever awareness they have does not generate the freedom to consciously choose which we experience as humans.

In essence I am saying that you cannot use observations of animal behaviour to prove or disprove the nature of our own self awareness or our freedom to make consciously driven choices.

It's not about proof, it is about what is reasonable and your hesitation to understand that inner mental states similar to ours are widespread in nature is utterly unreasonable and utterly without any evidential justification.  This gives the lie to your oft repeated spurious claim that mental phenomena such as perception are 'impossible' to define in material terms.  How can it be impossible when it clearly happens throughout nature ?

[Alan Burns]

It's not about proof, it is about what is reasonable and your hesitation to understand that inner mental states similar to ours are widespread in nature is utterly unreasonable and utterly without any evidential justification.  This gives the lie to your oft repeated spurious claim that mental phenomena such as perception are 'impossible' to define in material terms.  How can it be impossible when it clearly happens throughout nature ?

Just observing what you deem to be evidence of perception in other living creatures does not offer any explanation of what comprises perception or how it works.  Perception is not reaction.  It is simply an awareness of the data produced by our physical senses.  Out brains can be programmed to physically react to this data, but this reaction will not require (or indicate) conscious awareness of the data.

[torridon]

As I have previously indicated, my arguments to not start with a presumption of God.

They start with my perception of my own existence, and in particular my ability to consciously perceive and interact with the environment I exist in.  My ability to make make consciously driven choices and drive my own thought processes is a reality - not just a desirable conclusion made up to verify God's existence.

We're still waiting for an example of how you can control a thought.

[torridon]

Just observing what you deem to be evidence of perception in other living creatures does not offer any explanation of what comprises perception or how it works.  Perception is not reaction.  It is simply an awareness of the data produced by our physical senses.  Out brains can be programmed to physically react to this data, but this reaction will not require (or indicate) conscious awareness of the data.

Of course it indicates conscious awareness, what planet are you on ?  If I tread on my dog's foot and it yelps in pain, the reasonable assumption is that it is actually experiencing pain, do you really believe that its apparent behaviour in response to being stepped on is all some carefully choreographed hoax calculated to precisely mimic an authentic and actual pain response ?

[Alan Burns]

We're still waiting for an example of how you can control a thought.

I do not know precisely how I do it.
I just choose to do it. 
And I just demonstrated it by consciously composing this reply.

[Gordon]

As I have previously indicated, my arguments to not start with a presumption of God.

Of course they do: according to you we are born with the 'God' given gift of 'free will', so you most definitely start with 'God' and proceed on that basis.

They start with my perception of my own existence, and in particular my ability to consciously perceive and interact with the environment I exist in.

Might your 'perceptions' be wrong?   
 

My ability to make make consciously driven choices and drive my own thought processes is a reality - not just a desirable conclusion made up to verify God's existence.

Nobody denies you can think, Alan: but you just need some functioning biology for that (no 'God' required).

[BeRational]

I cannot say for certain whether God has given other species the gift of internal conscious awareness.  My assumptions about other animals are based on my observation that their behaviour is instinctive and predictable, indicating to me that whatever awareness they have does not generate the freedom to consciously choose which we experience as humans.

In essence I am saying that you cannot use observations of animal behaviour to prove or disprove the nature of our own self awareness or our freedom to make consciously driven choices.

You cannot demonstrate that a god has given us awareness!

to do that, you would first have to demonstrate a god, and you never do that.

[torridon]

I do not know precisely how I do it.
I just choose to do it. 
And I just demonstrated it by consciously composing this reply.

That makes no sense.

To consciously choose which thought to think would imply you've already consciously thought of it.  Can you not see the circularity in that ? We cannot think thoughts before we think them.  As with pretty much everything, your understanding of the workings of your own mind is very naive.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have previously indicated, my arguments to not start with a presumption of God.

Yes they precisely do – that’s why you have to deny the arguments that falsifies that perception without actually engaging with them.

They start with my perception of my own existence, and in particular my ability to consciously perceive and interact with the environment I exist in.  My ability to make make consciously driven choices and drive my own thought processes is a reality - not just a desirable conclusion made up to verify God's existence.

Except as has been explained to you countless times (and you just ignore) that’s all it is – a perception. And like many of our perceptions, when we investigate them we find that they fail as explanations. That’s why you need to dig deeper than “my perception” if you want to validate the conclusion you attach to it. Start here: whether the explanatory narrative you attach to your perception is true or whether there’s a deeper, logic and evidence-based explanation the two experiences would feel exactly the same.

Why then plump for the irrational over the rational one except for the fact that it supports a faith belief you hold a priori?   

As I said, the concepts of "flock", "ebb and flow" and "(ventilated) mounds" are human labels which we give to external observations of recognisable patterns or functionality existing in material elements under the control of natural forces.  Such external recognition offers no possible explanation for what comprises internal self awareness or how it works.

You’re terribly confused. “Flock”, “tide” etc are just linguistic descriptors. They still exist as phenomena whether or not we see them, name them or attach any other meaning to them. Birds will still fly in the same relationships to each other, bodies of water will still come and go in the course of the day.   

I cannot say for certain whether God has given other species the gift of internal conscious awareness.  My assumptions about other animals are based on my observation that their behaviour is instinctive and predictable, indicating to me that whatever awareness they have does not generate the freedom to consciously choose which we experience as humans.

In essence I am saying that you cannot use observations of animal behaviour to prove or disprove the nature of our own self awareness or our freedom to make consciously driven choices.

I cannot say for certain whether God has given other species the gift of internal conscious awareness.  My assumptions about other animals are based on my observation that their behaviour is instinctive and predictable, indicating to me that whatever awareness they have does not generate the freedom to consciously choose which we experience as humans.

In essence I am saying that you cannot use observations of animal behaviour to prove or disprove the nature of our own self awareness or our freedom to make consciously driven choices.

FIFY

[BeRational]

As I have previously indicated, my arguments to not start with a presumption of God.

They start with my perception of my own existence, and in particular my ability to consciously perceive and interact with the environment I exist in.  My ability to make make consciously driven choices and drive my own thought processes is a reality - not just a desirable conclusion made up to verify God's existence.

Do you perceive that the sky is blue? Hint it's not, blue does not really exist.
It is constructed in the mind and does not really exist out there. If we ever meet intelligent aliens we can never describe something as 'blue'!