Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

The evidence you continue to dismiss is our obvious ability to direct our own thought processes according to our conscious will.

That feeling is evidence, but it's poor evidence; we have any number of well documented examples of the fundamentally unreliable nature of our sensory appreciation of the world and ourselves.

The scenario which you proclaim to be the only explanation involves pre determined reactions driven entirely by laws of physics resulting in end reactions which are beyond any interventional control or manipulation.  If your thoughts and words are entirely pre defined before you are aware of them, how can you possibly claim any credit or credence for what you say?  To reach any conclusion requires the freedom to consciously drive your own thought processes, otherwise the result will command no credibility.

The implication of the understanding is that we can't reasonably actually take moral responsibility in the sense that you talk about, yes, but the fact that the implication might be unpalatable doesn't actually undermine the reasoning that leads to the conclusion in the first place.  Of course, what it means is that the concept of 'responsibility' is something that needs to be reconsidered in light of what we actually understand about our independence.

As to the idea that without free will any conclusion lacks credibility, I'd have to say that actually that's the exact opposite of the reality.  If we are unable to break free of the constraints of previous events, then the validity of any given conclusion is as reliable as the identification of those predicate events: if, on the other hand, there's an element of 'free will' in there, something independent of the causes and precursors, then even with the best understanding that random element in the mix could result in faulty conclusions. 'Free will', if it could be established, would undermine the already unreliable nature of human understanding and reasoning.

When you come to account for how you have used your gift of freewill - (a gift which defies any physical explanation) can you honestly claim that you never had such a gift?

If something defies any physical explanation, then that's reasonable grounds so far as I can see, to presume that you've misinterpreted what you think you've found in some fundamental way.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Others have undone you again already I see, though no doubt their falsifying arguments will fall on deaf ears just as they have so often before. For what it’s worth though, the statement “Oh, it's you - faith claim only then. OK, as you were” referred specifically to your unqualified, un-argued, un-evidenced assertion that it’s impossible for consciousness to emerge as a materialistic phenomenon. Not only is this something you cannot know to be the case, it also flatly contradicts the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As an example of emergence try looking at this video, specifically the example of simple “food” seeking robots:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdTBqBnqhaQ

The point here is that, even with basic neural networks armed with very few instructions complex behaviours (in this case a task improving communication method) will emerge spontaneously. Brains are bogglingly more complex neural networks than this one, yet entirely as an article of faith you just assert that consciousness cannot emerge from them. I have no idea why you think that, other than that fiction then allows you to insert various superstitious beliefs into that initial error in reasoning. And that presumably is why you’ll never be honest about this – it’s because you see this “it’s impossible” position to be central to enabling your faith beliefs, and so removing it would threaten them. And that’s something you could never allow.   

The evidence you continue to dismiss is our obvious ability to direct our own thought processes according to our conscious will.

All that’s obvious is that this simplistic thinking describes the experience of “free” will, but falls apart the moment you apply reason to how the phenomenon must actually take place.   

The scenario which you proclaim to be the only explanation…

No-one does that. Rather it’s the only explanation so far that’s logically sound and evidence-based.

…involves pre determined…

Again with the wrong term? Why do you keep doing that? “Deterministic” is the word you’re looking for (and have been given many times). “Pre-determined” implies an intelligent agency to make decisions a priori – something you cannot know to be the case.

…reactions driven entirely by laws of physics resulting in end reactions which are beyond any interventional control or manipulation.

Again, wrong terms but in essence yes. If you want to argue for “manipulation” outwith cause and effect, then you have a huge problem in basic logic to resolve first.

If…

Why do I have the feeling you’re about to collapse into the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy again?

… your thoughts and words are entirely pre defined before you are aware of them, how can you possibly claim any credit or credence for what you say?  To reach any conclusion requires the freedom to consciously drive your own thought processes, otherwise the result will command no credibility.

Oh dear, sure enough... The “I” that can take credit or blame is a functionally useful construct that well-describes the lived experience of being human. On a day-to-day basis it enables all of us to navigate the world we appear to inhabit, and up until around the mid-seventeenth century when people started to think harder about these things that model was taken to be “the” reality. Now however we - well, many of us – know it to be just a reality and that deeper, more logically robust realities sit beneath it. 

You know this already though because it’s been explained to you by me and by others eleventy gazillion times, but your only response is to ignore the argument and to make the same old mistakes in reasoning.

Why bother?

When you come to account for how you have used your gift of freewill - (a gift which defies any physical explanation) can you honestly claim that you never had such a gift?

Mostly because the premise that I have a “gift” at all is itself just a faith belief, and an incoherent one at that.

[Alan Burns]

Others have undone you again already I see, though no doubt their falsifying arguments will fall on deaf ears just as they have so often before. For what it’s worth though, the statement “Oh, it's you - faith claim only then. OK, as you were” referred specifically to your unqualified, un-argued, un-evidenced assertion that it’s impossible for consciousness to emerge as a materialistic phenomenon. Not only is this something you cannot know to be the case, it also flatly contradicts the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As an example of emergence try looking at this video, specifically the example of simple “food” seeking robots:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdTBqBnqhaQ

The point here is that, even with basic neural networks armed with very few instructions complex behaviours (in this case a task improving communication method) will emerge spontaneously. Brains are bogglingly more complex neural networks than this one, yet entirely as an article of faith you just assert that consciousness cannot emerge from them. I have no idea why you think that, other than that fiction then allows you to insert various superstitious beliefs into that initial error in reasoning. And that presumably is why you’ll never be honest about this – it’s because you see this “it’s impossible” position to be central to enabling your faith beliefs, and so removing it would threaten them. And that’s something you could never allow.   

All the examples of emergence you put forward involve outside observation of perceived complexity arising from some forms of material reactions.  But such outward observation will never perceive internal awareness, because internal awareness is not defined by outward appearance.

All that’s obvious is that this simplistic thinking describes the experience of “free” will, but falls apart the moment you apply reason to how the phenomenon must actually take place.   

But your reasoning does not define the true source of my conscious choices.  Trying to imply that my choices were already defined before I made them is not an explanation.  My ability to choose is a demonstrable reality, not a predefined reaction.  Any attempt at material explanation denies the reality of my freedom to choose.

Oh dear, sure enough... The “I” that can take credit or blame is a functionally useful construct that well-describes the lived experience of being human. On a day-to-day basis it enables all of us to navigate the world we appear to inhabit, and up until around the mid-seventeenth century when people started to think harder about these things that model was taken to be “the” reality. Now however we - well, many of us – know it to be just a reality and that deeper, more logically robust realities sit beneath it. 

To reduce yourself to being just a functionally useful construct would seem a step too far in trying to justify your materialist views.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All the examples of emergence you put forward involve outside observation of perceived complexity arising from some forms of material reactions.

No they don’t. The robots in the example I linked to would have done the same thing whether or not they were “observed”.

But such outward observation will never perceive internal awareness, because internal awareness is not defined by outward appearance.

That’s somewhere between incoherent and a non sequitur, but in any case “internal awareness” as you put it is actually self-awareness. And your epic problem is finally at least to try to validate the assertion “a materialistic model could never be self-aware”. You can say it as often as you like, but just repeating an assertion isn’t an argument, let alone a cogent one. 

But your reasoning does not define the true source of my conscious choices.

Yes, I know you have a faith position regarding a “true source” but that’s all it is – a faith position.

Trying to imply that my choices were already defined before I made them is not an explanation.

Yes it is, and your problem remains the phrase “before I made them”. What is this “I”, and how do you think it “made them” exactly, other that is than by invoking magic and calling it “soul”?
 

My ability to choose is a demonstrable reality, not a predefined reaction.  Any attempt at material explanation denies the reality of my freedom to choose.

If you think something is demonstrable then – finally – demonstrate it rather than just assert it. What’s stopping you? Surely you have something more than “It just feels that way to me” haven’t you?

Something?

Anything?

To reduce yourself to being just a functionally useful construct would seem a step too far in trying to justify your materialist views.

Describing a more robust reasoning than “it's magic” isn’t reducing to anything.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[Stranger]

But your reasoning does not define the true source of my conscious choices.

Neither does self-contradictory magic.

Trying to imply that my choices were already defined before I made them is not an explanation.

Self-contradictory magic is not an explanation.

Saying they are defined by who you are (because of your nature, nurture, and experience) is the only logical explanation that doesn't involve randomness.

My ability to choose is a demonstrable reality, not a predefined reaction.

Your ability to make choices is not in dispute. There cannot possibly be a demonstration of whether they were arrived at entirely due to your nature, nurture, and experience, applied to the circumstances, or not - and saying that it is demonstrable is basically a lie.

Any attempt at material explanation denies the reality of my freedom to choose.

This just is a lie.

[Gordon]

All the examples of emergence you put forward involve outside observation of perceived complexity arising from some forms of material reactions.  But such outward observation will never perceive internal awareness, because internal awareness is not defined by outward appearance.

But your reasoning does not define the true source of my conscious choices.  Trying to imply that my choices were already defined before I made them is not an explanation.  My ability to choose is a demonstrable reality, not a predefined reaction.  Any attempt at material explanation denies the reality of my freedom to choose.

To reduce yourself to being just a functionally useful construct would seem a step too far in trying to justify your materialist views.

More of your mindless theobabble, Alan: the irony being that your preferred alternative is rooted in religious superstitions dating from antiquity.

[Alan Burns]

That feeling is evidence, but it's poor evidence; we have any number of well documented examples of the fundamentally unreliable nature of our sensory appreciation of the world and ourselves.

The implication of the understanding is that we can't reasonably actually take moral responsibility in the sense that you talk about, yes, but the fact that the implication might be unpalatable doesn't actually undermine the reasoning that leads to the conclusion in the first place.  Of course, what it means is that the concept of 'responsibility' is something that needs to be reconsidered in light of what we actually understand about our independence.

As to the idea that without free will any conclusion lacks credibility, I'd have to say that actually that's the exact opposite of the reality.  If we are unable to break free of the constraints of previous events, then the validity of any given conclusion is as reliable as the identification of those predicate events: if, on the other hand, there's an element of 'free will' in there, something independent of the causes and precursors, then even with the best understanding that random element in the mix could result in faulty conclusions. 'Free will', if it could be established, would undermine the already unreliable nature of human understanding and reasoning.

If something defies any physical explanation, then that's reasonable grounds so far as I can see, to presume that you've misinterpreted what you think you've found in some fundamental way.

O.

The suggestion that human freewill means breaking free from previous events is quite wrong.  Freewill is simply the freedom to choose between one or more viable options which exist in your conscious awareness.  Your erudite post clearly shows that you have carefully chosen the words to express your point of view.  In the process of choosing these words, you will have had a consciously chosen goal to support your ideas concerning the concept of freewill, and you had the freedom to choose how best to achieve this goal.  It all occurs within your conscious awareness.  The materialistic views expressed in this thread suggest that our apparent choices are determined by subconscious brain activity before we are aware of them.  The contradiction is obvious.

[Alan Burns]

The robots in the example I linked to would have done the same thing whether or not they were “observed”.

The point I am making is that the concept of complexity only exists in human awareness.  The perceptions of functionality, meaning or purpose can only exist within our gift of self awareness.  The concept of beauty does not exist outside human awareness, neither does complexity.  Outside our awareness there are just material elements and forms of energy.  Categorisation and labels only exist in the human mind.  Any perceived complexity of material behavior can never be used to indicate the property of self awareness.

[Outrider]

The suggestion that human freewill means breaking free from previous events is quite wrong.  Freewill is simply the freedom to choose between one or more viable options which exist in your conscious awareness.

Actually, the concept of 'free' will explicitly requires a break from previous events. Physics is deterministic, if the input to a given neuron activates, then output from that neuron will also activate: our thought processes, therefore, in a materialistic worldview, are deterministic. In order to introduce something 'free' in there, we have to suggest something outside of that deterministic sequence, something 'uncaused' (at least in a physical sense).  That 'freedom to choose' between two viable options is, in the absence of something independent of material physics, illusory.

Your erudite post clearly shows that you have carefully chosen the words to express your point of view.  In the process of choosing these words, you will have had a consciously chosen goal to support your ideas concerning the concept of freewill, and you had the freedom to choose how best to achieve this goal.

There's a fair amount of evidence to show that simple choices (say, choosing between two colours) can be accurately predicted by FMRI monitoring software in advance of our consciously becoming aware of our choice - our conscious understanding of the choice happens after the choice has been made (Sam Harris has a particularly good take on this in his book 'Free Will' if I recall correctly).

It all occurs within your conscious awareness.  The materialistic views expressed in this thread suggest that our apparent choices are determined by subconscious brain activity before we are aware of them.  The contradiction is obvious.

The evidence suggests that it doesn't occur within our conscious awareness, the evidence suggests we become aware of it some time after the subconscious mind has decided and before the motor cortex puts the thought into action.  The contradiction is no more real than the free will it would support.

O.

[Stranger]

Actually, the concept of 'free' will explicitly requires a break from previous events. Physics is deterministic, if the input to a given neuron activates, then output from that neuron will also activate: our thought processes, therefore, in a materialistic worldview, are deterministic. In order to introduce something 'free' in there, we have to suggest something outside of that deterministic sequence, something 'uncaused' (at least in a physical sense).  That 'freedom to choose' between two viable options is, in the absence of something independent of material physics, illusory.

Any sort of "free will", aside from compatibilism, is logically incoherent anyway.

The mind, even if we allow some non-material part, is either fully deterministic (a deterministic system) or not, and if not, then it involves some truly random element. Randomness cannot make us any more "free" and AB keeps on insisting is not involved in his concept of freedom.

One of Alan's (many) mistakes is to think you can somehow escape from determinism (which he insists on calling "predetermined") by imagining a non-material soul. Whereas, even then, the only option is to add randomness.

[Stranger]

The suggestion that human freewill means breaking free from previous events is quite wrong.  Freewill is simply the freedom to choose between one or more viable options which exist in your conscious awareness.

    Here we go round and round and round....

That choice itself is what has to be entirely due to the reasons that led up to it (including nature, nurture, experience, state of mind, and so on - all of which arrive from the past) or not. If not, then a part of it must be unrelated to anything that led up to it - including the person making the choice themselves. That part can only be random - it cannot possibly contribute to a free choice of the person because it can have nothing to do with the person at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The point I am making is that the concept of complexity only exists in human awareness.  The perceptions of functionality, meaning or purpose can only exist within our gift of self awareness.  The concept of beauty does not exist outside human awareness, neither does complexity.  Outside our awareness there are just material elements and forms of energy.  Categorisation and labels only exist in the human mind.  Any perceived complexity of material behavior can never be used to indicate the property of self awareness.

Way to miss the point. The point of course was that the robots developed emergent properties that weren’t encoded into the original instructions.
It’s not a difficult idea to grasp if only you’d try. And if you did try then maybe, just maybe, you’d have the first inkling at least of the logically coherent materialistic explanation for consciousness.

Oh, and I see that you just ignored the other arguments that undid you. Funny that.   

[Alan Burns]

   Here we go round and round and round....

That choice itself is what has to be entirely due to the reasons that led up to it (including nature, nurture, experience, state of mind, and so on - all of which arrive from the past) or not. If not, then a part of it must be unrelated to anything that led up to it - including the person making the choice themselves. That part can only be random - it cannot possibly contribute to a free choice of the person because it can have nothing to do with the person at all.

True for machines, computers and robots with no self awareness - there can only be reaction to previous events.  But as ever you need to comprehend that self awareness is not a material reaction.  It is a state of mind which in itself is beyond human comprehension.  You cannot presume to know that our conscious mind is subject to the same cause and effect regime as human creations.

[Stranger]

But as ever you need to comprehend that self awareness is not a material reaction.

I have repeatedly specifically included the possibility of a non-material part to the brain and my argument does not assume a material reaction. Please stop misrepresenting what is being said to you.

It is a state of mind which in itself is beyond human comprehension.  You cannot presume to know that our conscious mind is subject to the same cause and effect regime as human creations.

As ever, I'm not presuming anything except logical self-consistency. Either by "beyond human comprehension" you are going to include being self-contradictory and allow things like square circles - or not. If you are, then you can't claim to have logic on your side at all - you can't logically argue for a contradiction. If not, my argument applies and you've just ignored it for what seems like about the 200,000th time.

[Alan Burns]

I have repeatedly specifically included the possibility of a non-material part to the brain and my argument does not assume a material reaction. Please stop misrepresenting what is being said to you.

As ever, I'm not presuming anything except logical self-consistency. Either by "beyond human comprehension" you are going to include being self-contradictory and allow things like square circles - or not. If you are, then you can't claim to have logic on your side at all - you can't logically argue for a contradiction. If not, my argument applies and you've just ignored it for what seems like about the 200,000th time.

My contention is that you and I and every other human being exist in our own present.  We are consciously aware of past events, but these events do not dictate what we consciously choose to do, think or say.  The present is where I exist.  It is where I perceive and interact with this material world.  I am not a machine, but I have conscious control of the amazing machine which is my physical body.  Nothing else makes sense.

[torridon]

My contention is that you and I and every other human being exist in our own present.  We are consciously aware of past events, but these events do not dictate what we consciously choose to do, think or say.  The present is where I exist.  It is where I perceive and interact with this material world.  I am not a machine, but I have conscious control of the amazing machine which is my physical body.  Nothing else makes sense.

You describe your sense of living in the present, but we know that sense is not really true to reality, it is a construction of mind. Our feeling of 'now' is actually half a second ago in the past.  It is a memory and when we make a choice 'now', it is really a memory of a choice already made.

Everyone shares that experience of having conscious control in the present moment, but you're failing to take deeper insights into account if you insist that our common experience is simply all there is to it, as if our human experience has no derivation from deeper underlying reality.  You're essentially playing the flat-earther here, saying of course the world is flat, that is how it feels, and that is all there is to it, end of story.  Some of us are not content to remain with a flat-earth model of reality.

[torridon]

True for machines, computers and robots with no self awareness - there can only be reaction to previous events.  But as ever you need to comprehend that self awareness is not a material reaction.  It is a state of mind which in itself is beyond human comprehension.  You cannot presume to know that our conscious mind is subject to the same cause and effect regime as human creations.

It is the assumption that the workings of mind observe the principles of cause and effect, if that were not the case, minds would not work.

Computers work because logic gates function deterministically, they always produce predictable outputs for given inputs. Were this not the case, computers would not work.

Brains work because neural junctions function deterministically too. Like silicone circuits, neural circuits produce predictable results for given inputs.  Were this not the case, then minds would not work, and there would be no life on this planet bar bacteria and plants.

It makes no sense to imagine that by willpower we can be 'free' from the deterministic operation of our minds; we cannot by willpower force particular neural connections to produce different outcomes to that which is mandated by the biochemistry involved.  Can you make a ball roll uphill rather than downhill just through willpower ?

[Stranger]

My contention is that you and I and every other human being exist in our own present.  We are consciously aware of past events, but these events do not dictate what we consciously choose to do, think or say.  The present is where I exist.  It is where I perceive and interact with this material world.

Yes, you've repeated this utterly meaningless, reasoning-free twaddle before. You have an actual logical contradiction to address, Alan. Waffling about "the present" isn't going to help. Strictly "the present" doesn't exist and colloquially, as in "living in the present", it is irrelevant to the logic.

If you want to try to properly define "the present" so it has some logical meaning, go ahead, but this hand-waving doesn't make the logic go away.

I am not a machine, but I have conscious control of the amazing machine which is my physical body.

False dichotomy.

Nothing else makes sense.

Says the guy whose view is self-contradictory and is therefore completely impossible....

[Alan Burns]

It is the assumption that the workings of mind observe the principles of cause and effect, if that were not the case, minds would not work.

No one can say how the conscious mind works.  It is a presumption to assume that it is entirely controlled by past events

Computers work because logic gates function deterministically, they always produce predictable outputs for given inputs. Were this not the case, computers would not work.

Computers lack the self awareness needed to work in any other way.

Brains work because neural junctions function deterministically too. Like silicone circuits, neural circuits produce predictable results for given inputs.  Were this not the case, then minds would not work, and there would be no life on this planet bar bacteria and plants.

Once more you presume to know how the conscious human mind works.  There is more to the "I" than mere correlation with physically detectable brain activity.

It makes no sense to imagine that by willpower we can be 'free' from the deterministic operation of our minds; we cannot by willpower force particular neural connections to produce different outcomes to that which is mandated by the biochemistry involved.  Can you make a ball roll uphill rather than downhill just through willpower ?

I have no conscious control of the ball unless I choose move it using my physical body.  So I do have conscious control of the neurons which activate my own bodily functions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have no conscious control of the ball unless I choose move it using my physical body.  So I do have conscious control of the neurons which activate my own bodily functions.

You haven't understood a word of the argument that falsifies this mistake have you. Not. A. Word.

[Gordon]

So I do have conscious control of the neurons which activate my own bodily functions.

It might feel like that, but since it seems the feeling of consciousness is just the output of the actions of your neurons then you are trying to manufacture a gap where there seems not to be one: it is just your neurons doing what they do, and one thing they do is give you the feeling of having control.

[Outrider]

My contention is that you and I and every other human being exist in our own present.  We are consciously aware of past events, but these events do not dictate what we consciously choose to do, think or say.

Except that documented measurements show that what we think are our conscious choices are us becoming aware of unconscious activity that has occurred in our own immediate past - they do not 'dictate' what we consciously choose, they in actuality are what we think we have consciously chosen.

The present is where I exist.  It is where I perceive and interact with this material world.

The present is where you are aware of your existence, but the activity has already happened before you become aware of it.  The sun is in one position in the sky when you see it, but the reality is that this is where it was around eight minutes ago - your perception of it doesn't change that.

I am not a machine, but I have conscious control of the amazing machine which is my physical body.  Nothing else makes sense.

There is no evidence for anything involved in thinking which is not neural activity.  There is ample evidence that our conscious awareness is an after-effect of unconscious processing.  You say that 'nothing else makes sense' but then want to introduce something with no evidence, to operate via a mechanism you can't elucidate upon without any gap in the current theory for it to need to fill - you say that 'nothing else makes sense', but there is no sense to what you claim without evidentiary basis.

O.

O.

[Stranger]

Once more you presume to know how the conscious human mind works.  There is more to the "I" than mere correlation with physically detectable brain activity.

Nobody is doing more baseless presuming than you, Alan. And you are still ignoring the fact that your presumptions are fundamentally self-contradictory.

[torridon]

I have no conscious control of the ball unless I choose move it using my physical body.  So I do have conscious control of the neurons which activate my own bodily functions.

Clearly you didn't understand the analogy then.  If you can intervene in the operation of neural transmission across synaptic clefts contrary to the natural functioning of biochemistry then what is to stop you intervening in the roll of a ball contrary to the natural functioning of gravity ?  Either situation is a claim of supernatural power to defy natural law.  We aren't supernatural, we obey the fundamental laws of nature and all our sensations and choices and willpower arise out of the functioning of natural law.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Curious though that AB thinks his "soul" is a footballer. Wonder if it plays for Southampton FC - "The Saints"?

...after all, Jesus plays for Man City