Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

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?

Yes it is:

AB: "My belief is that the lived experience of free will is obviously also the explanation for it."

Thinking people: "That belief cannot be true, and here's why..."

AB: "I don't care what your argument demonstrates, the fact that you can make it at all means I'm right."

Thinking people: "That belief cannot be true, and here's why..."

AB: "I don't care what your argument demonstrates, the fact that you can make it at all means I'm right."

Repeat endlessly.

For as long as he relies on his assertion of an "obvious truth" rather than makes an argument for it he'll never be brave enough to engage with the arguments that falsify his faith in it.

[Outrider]

As I have said on previous posts, the third way would be our conscious awareness existing in its own present state - perceiving and interacting with our physical brain to invoke whatever is needed to implement a choice.

That's the mechanics of how it does what it does, not the logical process-map - it 'perceives' from our physical brain: does it determine a return signal based upon what it perceives (not free) or does it just generate a random response (not will)?

I believe that our conscious awareness is the only viable definition for the word "present" because that is where we exist and make our choices.

Again, I refer you to the evidence that suggests this is not the case.

Scripture would indicate that the human soul is immortal, therefore not belonging or being part of this material world, so it would not be restricted by the time related laws of cause and effect.  Our spiritual nature would also fit in with God's nature as indicated in the awesome beginning of John's gospel - "In the beginning was the word …" - not a material thing but a meaning - a conscious intention to bring this universe into existence.

Scripture asserts many things, but it justified few if any of them, and like any assertion can be put aside until something is offered to support it.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Quite apart from at least three glaringly obvious logical blunders, all of which have been pointed out before (many, many times) ….

I must have missed these corrections, so please explain again how the properties of material elements can get interpreted into the meaning apparent in our conscious awareness?

Material reactions can induce reactions in other material elements, but is there any feasible explanation for how and where consciously perceived meaning can exist within these chains of reactions? My contention is that it is impossible for a single entity of conscious awareness to be generated from chains of physical reactions.  Our conscious awareness must come from a means to perceive and interpret material reactions - not from the reactions themselves.

Awareness is not a physical reaction -
"be still and know that I am God"
"In God alone is my soul at rest"

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I must have missed these corrections, so please explain again how the properties of material elements can get interpreted into the meaning apparent in our conscious awareness?

Material reactions can induce reactions in other material elements, but is there any feasible explanation for how and where consciously perceived meaning can exist within these chains of reactions? My contention is that it is impossible for a single entity of conscious awareness to be generated from chains of physical reactions.  Our conscious awareness must come from a means to perceive and interpret material reactions - not from the reactions themselves.

Then your contention is evidence-denying, logically incoherent blind faith. The “feasible explanation” (ie the one to hand that’s logically coherent and evidence-based) is that consciousness is an emergent property of brains. That your alternative is essentially magic – ie, an invisible little man at the controls that in some way you can’t explain wouldn’t have to function either deterministically or randomly – is gibberish.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Then your contention is evidence-denying, logically incoherent blind faith. The “feasible explanation” (ie the one to hand that’s logically coherent and evidence-based) is that consciousness is an emergent property of brains. That your alternative is essentially magic – ie, an invisible little man at the controls that in some way you can’t explain wouldn’t have to function either deterministically or randomly – is gibberish.

And just labelling something as an emergent property explains nothing about how chains of material reactions can possibly get interpreted by a single entity of awareness which perceives meaning.

[Stranger]

I must have missed these corrections, so please explain again how the properties of material elements can get interpreted into the meaning apparent in our conscious awareness?

Oh do pay attention! I said you'd made three obvious logical blunders, one of which was an argument from ignorance. I did not say that there was a full explanation of consciousness from "material elements" but going from such a lack to "it is therefore impossible", is the aforementioned argument from ignorance - one of your favourite fallacies.

Material reactions can induce reactions in other material elements, but is there any feasible explanation for how and where consciously perceived meaning can exist within these chains of reactions? My contention is that it is impossible for a single entity of conscious awareness to be generated from chains of physical reactions.  Our conscious awareness must come from a means to perceive and interpret material reactions - not from the reactions themselves.

Yes Alan, you've repeated your blind faith assertions, your logical contradictions, and your undefined nonsense ad nauseam - I think it's safe to assume that everybody knows what your contentions are, what is lacking is anything at all to back them up.

[Nearly Sane]

And just labelling something as an emergent property explains nothing about how chains of material reactions can possibly get interpreted by a single entity of awareness which perceives meaning.

Note your use of the phrase 'single entity of awareness' is begging the question, which as so often happens when someone does means circular argument. Your post can be dismissed as logically flawed.

[Stranger]

And just labelling something as an emergent property explains nothing about how chains of material reactions can possibly get interpreted by a single entity of awareness which perceives meaning.

It's not just labelling - it's what the evidence is telling us. And, since your own "explanation" is a muddled mess of fallacies, contradictions, undefined nonsense, and unevidenced magic, you're not really in a great place to criticise...

[torridon]

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.

I'm pointing out that your exclusivist human-only explanation is obviously wrong as the phenomena of mind you keep claiming to be impossible are in fact widespread, natural phenomena not exclusive to homo sapiens.  You need to see and understand the bigger picture, which is why I suggest you sit down and enjoy a few episodes of Blue Planet or similar, then you would start to understand how ridiculous and short sighted your imaginings are. 

The fact that I cannot explain all these phenomena is not a justification to hand waive them away as if they do not exist; I cannot fully explain gravity to you, nor wave function collapse, nor photosynthesis, nor string theory, nor quantum entanglement and to add to this we can add consciousness, these are all work in progress, the leading edge of where we are at right now in research terms.

Do you understand this now, or am I going to find myself having to repeat this all over again in two months time ?

[torridon]

And just labelling something as an emergent property explains nothing about how chains of material reactions can possibly get interpreted by a single entity of awareness which perceives meaning.

This 'single entity of awareness' is just another of your go-to red herrings.  As with all phenomena of mind you can thank evolution for the fact that we experience a singularity of perception.  Every mammal also has a twin hemispheric brain with two eyes and two ears and yet there is no reason think that every pig, horse, rabbit and cat suffers from double vision or double auditory sensation whereas human uniquely are able to combine data from twin optic nerves into a single stream of visual experience. Evolution solved this problem of the synthesis of multiple sensory inputs millions of years before humans evolved.

We can be confident that it is the corpus callosum - the connective tissue that joins the hemispheres of the brain - which is involved in this. We know this from empirical evidence from treating patients with epilepsy. In the most severe cases where all pharmacological interventions have failed surgeons perform a corpus callosotomy cutting through the corpus callosum resulting in a split-brain patient.  A by product of this procedure is that the 'single entity of awareness' becomes two, in effect, there are now two consciousnesses, two centres of cognition and volition each developing their own personalities over time. A split brain patient is effectively two people living in the same body, trying to get along with each other as best they can.

There is no reason to believe that a 'single entity of awareness' is an impossible phenomenon; it is a wonder of evolution that we benefit from thanks to our shared ancestry with other creatures.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no reason to believe that a 'single entity of awareness' is an impossible phenomenon; it is a wonder of evolution that we benefit from thanks to our shared ancestry with other creatures.

I think though you have to be careful with words - you see a 'single entity of awareness' as a phenomenon, AB sees it as an objective existing thing. The ambiguity in terms means you are talking past each other.

[Alan Burns]

I'm pointing out that your exclusivist human-only explanation is obviously wrong as the phenomena of mind you keep claiming to be impossible are in fact widespread, natural phenomena not exclusive to homo sapiens.  You need to see and understand the bigger picture, which is why I suggest you sit down and enjoy a few episodes of Blue Planet or similar, then you would start to understand how ridiculous and short sighted your imaginings are. 

Whenever I watch an episode of Blue Planet I am struck with awe at the nature and beauty of God's creative power.  I have shared private correspondence with David Attenborough on the evidence of God's creative power presented in his programmes but unfortunately he has not yet come round to my way of thinking. 

[Roses]

Whenever I watch an episode of Blue Planet I am struck with awe at the nature of and beauty of God's creative power.  I have shared private correspondence with David Attenborough on the evidence of God's creative power presented in his programmes but unfortunately he has not yet come round to my way of thinking. 

Surprise, surprise.

If god created everything it cocked up very badly in some instances!

[Stranger]

Whenever I watch an episode of Blue Planet I am struck with awe at the nature and beauty of God's creative power.  I have shared private correspondence with David Attenborough on the evidence of God's creative power presented in his programmes but unfortunately he has not yet come round to my way of thinking. 

I suspect that might be because he understands evolution and has some grasp of what evidence actually means...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Whenever I watch an episode of Blue Planet I am struck with awe at the nature and beauty of God's creative power.  I have shared private correspondence with David Attenborough on the evidence of God's creative power presented in his programmes but unfortunately he has not yet come round to my way of thinking. 

Presumably because writing the address in green ink told him he should throw the letters in the bin unopened.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Presumably because writing the address in green ink told him he should throw the letters in the bin unopened.

He replied very courteously, respecting my views and stating his own.  However he did admit to some limitations in his knowledge of science after reading a copy of my Mensa article.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

He replied very courteously, respecting my views and stating his own.  However he did admit to some limitations in his knowledge of science after reading a copy of my Mensa article.

Bullshit.

[Alan Burns]

I'm pointing out that your exclusivist human-only explanation is obviously wrong as the phenomena of mind you keep claiming to be impossible are in fact widespread, natural phenomena not exclusive to homo sapiens.  You need to see and understand the bigger picture, which is why I suggest you sit down and enjoy a few episodes of Blue Planet or similar, then you would start to understand how ridiculous and short sighted your imaginings are. 

The fact that I cannot explain all these phenomena is not a justification to hand waive them away as if they do not exist; I cannot fully explain gravity to you, nor wave function collapse, nor photosynthesis, nor string theory, nor quantum entanglement and to add to this we can add consciousness, these are all work in progress, the leading edge of where we are at right now in research terms.

Do you understand this now, or am I going to find myself having to repeat this all over again in two months time ?

I fully understand what you are saying, but I have to disagree that observation of instinctive animal behaviour can lead to conclusions about their internal thoughts and conscious awareness.  You need to stick with what you know about the nature of your own conscious awareness and thought processes and try to figure out what they are in terms of particle physics.  When you read a word, the meaning of that word exists in your conscious awareness - but what is it in physical terms?  Is it a specific pattern of electro chemical activity?  If so, how does it get interpreted to be the meaning you perceive?  Where in your material brain does this meaning exist?

[torridon]

Whenever I watch an episode of Blue Planet I am struck with awe at the nature and beauty of God's creative power.  I have shared private correspondence with David Attenborough on the evidence of God's creative power presented in his programmes but unfortunately he has not yet come round to my way of thinking. 

Say what ?  I hope you didn't write him explaining that all those wonderful life forms he brings to our TV screens are really just insentient mechanoids devoid of any inner conscious experience ?

[torridon]

I fully understand what you are saying, but I have to disagree that observation of instinctive animal behaviour can lead to conclusions about their internal thoughts and conscious awareness.  You need to stick with what you know about the nature of your own conscious awareness and thought processes and try to figure out what they are in terms of particle physics.  When you read a word, the meaning of that word exists in your conscious awareness - but what is it in physical terms?  Is it a specific pattern of electro chemical activity?  If so, how does it get interpreted to be the meaning you perceive?  Where in your material brain does this meaning exist?

Oi I've just covered this ground not once but twice in the last two days and here you are again seemingly not having read them;  go back and have a read of replies #37264 and #37269.  To recap, our ability to glean meaning from the printed word is at base an example of the operation of conscious perception as it works in humans, and the ability of a parent penguin to recognise her chick from amongst thousands in the colony is also a manifestation of conscious perception working in penguins.  Without it, penguin chicks would die of starvation and penguins would have long gone extinct.  Perception is about the rendering of sensory inputs into internal meaning.  Without it, the gazelle would not be able to recognise the lion as a predatory threat, without it the eagle would not be able to recognise the rabbit on the ground as a source of food.  What on Earth justifies the notion that the mammalian perceptual system that humans have courtesy of our mammalian brains does not work in any mammals apart from human ones ? There is no evidence of some parallel system that works for non human mammals, and even if there was, then the cortical structures involved in perception in other mammals would have disappeared through lack of use. 

Follow the evidence, be true to evidence, and stop wasting people's time with such unbridled nonsense.

[Stranger]

You need to stick with what you know about the nature of your own conscious awareness and thought processes and try to figure out what they are in terms of particle physics.  When you read a word, the meaning of that word exists in your conscious awareness - but what is it in physical terms?  Is it a specific pattern of electro chemical activity?  If so, how does it get interpreted to be the meaning you perceive?  Where in your material brain does this meaning exist?

Talk about double standards! You want people to accept totally unevidenced magic, logical contradictions, and terms you can't even define without circularity, yet you criticise science, which has plenty of actual evidence, for not knowing all the detail.

Perhaps you should concentrate on "taking the plank out of your own eye" first...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Talk about double standards! You want people to accept totally unevidenced magic, logical contradictions, and terms you can't even define without circularity, yet you criticise science, which has plenty of actual evidence, for not knowing all the detail.

Perhaps you should concentrate on "taking the plank out of your own eye" first...

It's astonishing hypocrisy isn't it. Essentially, "I reject entirely the picture I'm given because some of the pieces of the jig-saw are missing so instead the correct picture must be one for which I have no pieces of the jig-saw at all". 

What's actually happening is that he's rejecting logic and evidence in favour of no logic and no evidence because the former undermines some faith beliefs he happens to have, but he'll never be honest enough to say that so he's stuck in hypocrisy corner forever it seems

[Roses]

I think it is sad when faith wins out over logic.

[Alan Burns]

Oi I've just covered this ground not once but twice in the last two days and here you are again seemingly not having read them;  go back and have a read of replies #37264 and #37269.  To recap, our ability to glean meaning from the printed word is at base an example of the operation of conscious perception as it works in humans, and the ability of a parent penguin to recognise her chick from amongst thousands in the colony is also a manifestation of conscious perception working in penguins.  Without it, penguin chicks would die of starvation and penguins would have long gone extinct.  Perception is about the rendering of sensory inputs into internal meaning.  Without it, the gazelle would not be able to recognise the lion as a predatory threat, without it the eagle would not be able to recognise the rabbit on the ground as a source of food.  What on Earth justifies the notion that the mammalian perceptual system that humans have courtesy of our mammalian brains does not work in any mammals apart from human ones ? There is no evidence of some parallel system that works for non human mammals, and even if there was, then the cortical structures involved in perception in other mammals would have disappeared through lack of use. 

Follow the evidence, be true to evidence, and stop wasting people's time with such unbridled nonsense.

But it is not about penguins or rabbits.  It is about you and your own ability to be consciously aware of meaning.  An ability which defies any physical explanation, because material elements are incapable of forming a single entity of conscious awareness as outlined in my previous posts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

An ability which defies any physical explanation...

Wrong.

I could tel you why it's wrong (again) but as you'll just ignore the explanation (again) there'd be no point would there.