Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

You totally missed the point.
The human freedoms I illustrated were concerning our freedom to think, to contemplate and to draw conclusions.  These in no way can be compared to observed animal behaviour.

You are shifting goal posts again.  Freedom means the absence of constraints, and just as there is nothing stopping me from buying the home of my dreams, there is nothing stopping the robin from choosing a nesting site according to its preference.  We are both free in the same sense of the word.  You are confusing cognitive complexity and sophistication for freedom.  Choosing a nesting site may be a simpler job than choosing a house, but a robin's thought processes are clearly well adapted to that job otherwise robins would have long gone extinct.  Buying a house may involve many more considerations, but it is not so impenetrably difficult that we must need supernatural powers in order to buy a two bed bungalow in Surbiton.

[torridon]

The evidence apparent in our human freedom is a clear indication that our consciously controlled thoughts, words and actions are not just inevitable, uncontrollable reactions to past events.

This makes no sense (as usual, sigh).  If our thoughts do not derive from anything, then they are random.  We cannot be simultaneously both random and not random.

[torridon]

You have said this many times, but you can't presume to know that anything non material is subject to the same time dependent endless chains of cause and effect we perceive in material entities.

Whatever 'non material' is, if it is not subject to any principles of organising logic, then it must be random.

[Alan Burns]

This makes no sense (as usual, sigh).  If our thoughts do not derive from anything, then they are random.  We cannot be simultaneously both random and not random.

There is nothing random about consciously controlled human will.  You seem to have a block about understanding the nature and power of human will which enables us to make consciously driven choices which are not just inevitable uncontrollable reactions.  I know that this does not fit in with your ideas about chains of physically controlled cause and effect, but it does fit in with the reality of our ability to choose what we do, think or say.  You can't change reality to fit in with our limited knowledge of how things work.

[Alan Burns]

Freedom means the absence of constraints ...

That is just your limited definition of freedom which fits in with your ideas about how the human mind works.  In the context of human free will, our freedom is simply the freedom to consciously choose what we do, think or say within the available constraints.  Your version of freedom puts us on a roller coaster through life on which we have no choice about the direction we take.

[Alan Burns]

This makes no sense (as usual, sigh).  If our thoughts do not derive from anything, then they are random.  We cannot be simultaneously both random and not random.

I did not say that thoughts do not derive from anything.  They are formed by our conscious human will.  We are consciously aware of past events, and we are consciously aware of available options and possible consequences.  They all exist in our present state of conscious awareness at the time we invoke our deliberate choices.

[ekim]

That is just your limited definition of freedom which fits in with your ideas about how the human mind works.  In the context of human free will, our freedom is simply the freedom to consciously choose what we do, think or say within the available constraints.  Your version of freedom puts us on a roller coaster through life on which we have no choice about the direction we take.

I think you will need to provide an example of your version of 'freedom' and show how, within you, it is free from thought, desire, willfulness, physical and mental limitations.

[Stranger]

I did not say that thoughts do not derive from anything.  They are formed by our conscious human will.  We are consciously aware of past events, and we are consciously aware of available options and possible consequences.  They all exist in our present state of conscious awareness at the time we invoke our deliberate choices.

Just repeating this over and over, like some mindless automaton, isn't going to make it suddenly make sense. It's been explained to you why this is nonsense, many, many times and by several people.

I suppose it's utterly pointless to ask you yet again to stop the mindless repetition and start engaging with the arguments that have been put to you?

[Stranger]

You seem to have a block about understanding the nature and power of human will...

It's not a block Alan, it's that your claims are literally nonsensical.

...which enables us to make consciously driven choices which are not just inevitable uncontrollable reactions.  I know that this does not fit in with your ideas about chains of physically controlled cause and effect, but it does fit in with the reality of our ability to choose what we do, think or say. 

This is simply untrue. There is nothing at all about reality that suggest your impossible, contradictory claims - nor could there possibly be anything that did because they are nonsensical.

[torridon]

There is nothing random about consciously controlled human will.  You seem to have a block about understanding the nature and power of human will which enables us to make consciously driven choices which are not just inevitable uncontrollable reactions.  I know that this does not fit in with your ideas about chains of physically controlled cause and effect, but it does fit in with the reality of our ability to choose what we do, think or say.  You can't change reality to fit in with our limited knowledge of how things work.

If I have a block about anything, it is a block against the ingress of irrational thought, and your claims are inherently irrational.  Show some reasoning, backed up with examples, and you might make progress.  All we get from you is unfounded assertion and circular reasoning.  Human will, just as any other creature's will, must be derived from something, and your contention that it is its own cause is circular nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on November 02, 2019, 10:42:57 PM
Conscious awareness is perceived, not determined.

You used the term, which is why I put it in scare quotes - because I wasn't sure what you were talking about. I'm still not.

What I am illustrating is the nature of our conscious awareness and how it differs from physical data or reactions.

Take the printed word.  In physical terms it is just ink stains on paper - it has meaning in our conscious awareness, but outside our conscious awareness it is just ink stains on paper.  And if you carry on with this example, the pattern of ink stains will be reproduced in the retina of our eye, where it will exist as a pattern of activated pixels within the eyeball.  This pattern of pixels will then transfer data along nerves into the material brain, where it will activate some neural activity.  But the neural activity alone will not exist as a meaning of the word - it remains as a pattern of electrochemical activity.  To get to the meaning, you need to have conscious awareness and interpretation of this neural activity.  This conscious awareness of meaning does not exist in the material elements of the brain any more than in the stains on the piece of paper.

[Stranger]

This conscious awareness of meaning does not exist in the material elements of the brain any more than in the stains on the piece of paper.

So you endlessly assert, without the first hint or reasoning or evidence, while totally ignoring the blatant self-contradiction in your own ideas.....

[torridon]

You used the term, which is why I put it in scare quotes - because I wasn't sure what you were talking about. I'm still not.

What I am illustrating is the nature of our conscious awareness and how it differs from physical data or reactions.

Take the printed word.  In physical terms it is just ink stains on paper - it has meaning in our conscious awareness, but outside our conscious awareness it is just ink stains on paper.  And if you carry on with this example, the pattern of ink stains will be reproduced in the retina of our eye, where it will exist as a pattern of activated pixels within the eyeball.  This pattern of pixels will then transfer data along nerves into the material brain, where it will activate some neural activity.  But the neural activity alone will not exist as a meaning of the word - it remains as a pattern of electrochemical activity.  To get to the meaning, you need to have conscious awareness and interpretation of this neural activity.  This conscious awareness of meaning does not exist in the material elements of the brain any more than in the stains on the piece of paper.

This is a description of perception, something that has already been covered multitudinous times on here.  Perception is fundamental and ancient brain function, it is not something that just evolved recently in homo sapiens.  Humans do perception because of our shared ancestry with all other creatures which also have advanced perceptual systems.  You don't need supernatural powers to do perception, it is natural and ubiquitous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

[Alan Burns]

This is a description of perception, something that has already been covered multitudinous times on here.  Perception is fundamental and ancient brain function, it is not something that just evolved recently in homo sapiens.  Humans do perception because of our shared ancestry with all other creatures which also have advanced perceptual systems.  You don't need supernatural powers to do perception, it is natural and ubiquitous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

But there is still no definition for how material reactions can generate conscious awareness.  Conscious awareness is not defined by material states, it comprises awareness of material states - not the material state itself.  And conscious awareness cannot be presumed by making comparisons with instinctive animal behaviours.  Instinctive behaviour can result from pre programmed reactions to sensory data.  Conscious awareness involves perception of data - not programmed reaction to it.

[torridon]

But there is still no definition for how material reactions can generate conscious awareness.  Conscious awareness is not defined by material states, it comprises awareness of material states - not the material state itself.  And conscious awareness cannot be presumed by making comparisons with instinctive animal behaviours.  Instinctive behaviour can result from pre programmed reactions to sensory data.  Conscious awareness involves perception of data - not programmed reaction to it.

No animal is purely 'programmed' that is way too simplistic. Like humans, each animal is unique, developing and learning as it goes through life and their responses vary from individual to individual.  Any stable hand will tell you each horse has its own temperament and personality.  If you want to talk about creatures that are 'programmed' you are restricting the conversation to the very simplest organisms, worms, molluscs, ants etc. but this does not apply with higher animals, all of which need and benefit from a rich form of conscious perception just like we do although the experience will not necessarily be the same as in humans.

Just because we do not yet fully understand things should not licence us to splice in some simplistic supernatural beliefs in place of true understanding; to do so dulls the appetite for inquiry and learning, and besides which, such 'explanations' inevitably turn out to be irrational on their own terms when examined critically.

[Stranger]

But there is still no definition for how material reactions can generate conscious awareness.

Which makes self-contradictory nonsense and magic, sooo much more credible as an 'explanation'.....

 

[Alan Burns]

So you endlessly assert, without the first hint or reasoning or evidence, while totally ignoring the blatant self-contradiction in your own ideas.....

Can you not see that meaning can only exist in human conscious awareness?  Meaning is not a pattern of electro chemical activity in a lump of material.  It is conscious perception and interpretation of material entities - not the material itself. 

[Gordon]

Can you not see that meaning can only exist in human conscious awareness?  Meaning is not a pattern of electro chemical activity in a lump of material.  It is conscious perception and interpretation of material entities - not the material itself.

This nonsense of yours is laughable, Alan: and let us not forget that underlying this nonsense is your superstitious belief in immaterial supernatural agents about which you can say nothing meaningful.

I see you are still peddling the fallacy of composition (among others). 

[Alan Burns]

This nonsense of yours is laughable, Alan: and let us not forget that underlying this nonsense is your superstitious belief in immaterial supernatural agents about which you can say nothing meaningful.

For evidence of the supernatural, you need look no further than your own conscious self.

[torridon]

Can you not see that meaning can only exist in human conscious awareness?  Meaning is not a pattern of electro chemical activity in a lump of material.  It is conscious perception and interpretation of material entities - not the material itself.

Don't be silly Alan. this idiotic nonsense of yours has been debunked many times already, do people the courtesy of actually reading what is written and engaging brain to understand; in fact I covered this only yesterday in #37264.  All higher animals display conscious perception, it is not only humans and we can do this because we inherited this basic pre-mammalian brain function though our shared ancestry with other species. 

When a female emperor penguin returns to her colony after months of feeding out at sea, she has to identify her partner and her chick from amongst ten thousand virtually identical penguins and chicks, and yet somehow she does it.  This is not magic at work, it is the power of conscious perception manifesting in penguins, the translation of sensory data into internal meaning, recognition, stirring emotional bonds.  In fact I'd suggest as a remedy to this debilitatingly myopic human-centric view of life, you could do no better than watch a series of Planet Earth or Blue Planet and come to understand the richness and diversity of life that goes on every day beyond the rather closed and indifferent world of humans.

[Stranger]

Can you not see that meaning can only exist in human conscious awareness?  Meaning is not a pattern of electro chemical activity in a lump of material.  It is conscious perception and interpretation of material entities - not the material itself.

There's a suitable acronym for this sort of empty repetition: PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times).

For evidence of the supernatural, you need look no further than your own conscious self.

Drivel.

[Alan Burns]

Don't be silly Alan. this idiotic nonsense of yours has been debunked many times already, do people the courtesy of actually reading what is written and engaging brain to understand; in fact I covered this only yesterday in #37264.  All higher animals display conscious perception, it is not only humans and we can do this because we inherited this basic pre-mammalian brain function though our shared ancestry with other species. 

When a female emperor penguin returns to her colony after months of feeding out at sea, she has to identify her partner and her chick from amongst ten thousand virtually identical penguins and chicks, and yet somehow she does it.  This is not magic at work, it is the power of conscious perception manifesting in penguins, the translation of sensory data into internal meaning, recognition, stirring emotional bonds.  In fact I'd suggest as a remedy to this debilitatingly myopic human-centric view of life, you could do no better than watch a series of Planet Earth or Blue Planet and come to understand the richness and diversity of life that goes on every day beyond the rather closed and indifferent world of humans.

Your constant attempts to compare human conscious awareness with animal behaviour still fails to explain the process of interpreting meaning from the physical state of material particles.  The meaning only exists in our conscious awareness - not in the particles themselves.  Material elements can certainly generate physical reactions - as seen in observed animal behaviour, but there is no feasible model for how material elements can generate meaning into our conscious awareness.

[Roses]

Your constant attempts to compare human conscious awareness with animal behaviour still fails to explain the process of interpreting meaning from the physical state of material particles.  The meaning only exists in our conscious awareness - not in the particles themselves.  Material elements can certainly generate physical reactions - as seen in observed animal behaviour, but there is no feasible model for how material elements can generate meaning into our conscious awareness.

AB humans are an animal species.

[Gordon]

Your constant attempts to compare human conscious awareness with animal behaviour still fails to explain the process of interpreting meaning from the physical state of material particles.  The meaning only exists in our conscious awareness - not in the particles themselves.  Material elements can certainly generate physical reactions - as seen in observed animal behaviour, but there is no feasible model for how material elements can generate meaning into our conscious awareness.

You do seem fond of the fallacy of composition these days.

[Stranger]

Your constant attempts to compare human conscious awareness with animal behaviour still fails to explain the process of interpreting meaning from the physical state of material particles.  The meaning only exists in our conscious awareness - not in the particles themselves.  Material elements can certainly generate physical reactions - as seen in observed animal behaviour, but there is no feasible model for how material elements can generate meaning into our conscious awareness.

PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times) - again.

Quite apart from at least three glaringly obvious logical blunders, all of which have been pointed out before (many, many times), you have no alternative explanation. Undefined nonsense, logical contradictions, and unevidenced magic, explain exactly nothing.