Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

And none of this comes near explaining to how a single entity of internal conscious awareness can emerge from discrete elements.

But clearly, it happens somehow.

[Gordon]

And none of this comes near explaining to how a single entity of internal conscious awareness can emerge from discrete elements.

Don't be silly: internal mental processes are biological processes, so even if the precise details aren't fully understood enough is known to conclude that mental activity is just biology at work.

[Alan Burns]

Don't be silly: internal mental processes are biological processes, so even if the precise details aren't fully understood enough is known to conclude that mental activity is just biology at work.

Biology is simply the study of organic matter, which comprises observation of material reactions in living organisms.  Biological study cannot differentiate between organisms with conscious awareness and organisms which comprise nothing but material reactions.  There is no biological definition for human self awareness.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes it does.

As I have previously pointed out, emergent properties comprise an external perception of complex activity.  Such external observation does not in any way indicate the presence internal conscious awareness, unless the observed entity can somehow communicate the presence of their internal awareness.

[Gordon]

Biology is simply the study of organic matter, which comprises observation of material reactions in living organisms.  Biological study cannot differentiate between organisms with conscious awareness and organisms which comprise nothing but material reactions.  There is no biological definition for human self awareness.

Again, don't be silly: conscious awareness occurs due to active biology, and to be specific brains (as opposed to, say, kidneys), so we can easily 'define' it, or more accurately describe it, as a process that occurs due to living brains doing what living brains do.

I see you are giving the fallacy of composition another airing.

[Gordon]

As I have previously pointed out, emergent properties comprise an external perception of complex activity.  Such external observation does not in any way indicate the presence internal conscious awareness, unless the observed entity can somehow communicate the presence of their internal awareness.

Waffle.

Tell me Alan, since you are our resident expert on 'souls', if these 'souls' are an adjunct to our biology and act to enable 'free will' then how do they operate in children: say a 6 year old such as my younger grandson, where either his 'soul' is as immature as he is and it will mature as he will, or his 'soul' must be frustrated in that it would be capable of much more than a 6 year old can manage, which doesn't seem to be a well thought out approach by an all-wise God.

I suspect you are conflating 'souls' with brains.

[torridon]

As I have previously pointed out, emergent properties comprise an external perception of complex activity.  Such external observation does not in any way indicate the presence internal conscious awareness, unless the observed entity can somehow communicate the presence of their internal awareness.

All creatures signal their internal state when conscious.  The fact that they are communicating at all requires consciousness.  My dog wags his tail when he is happy and excited.  A dog that was unconscious could not wag his tail.  Is this really so hard ?  Perhaps you ought to get a pet and learn to observe.

[Alan Burns]

All creatures signal their internal state when conscious.  The fact that they are communicating at all requires consciousness.  My dog wags his tail when he is happy and excited.  A dog that was unconscious could not wag his tail.  Is this really so hard ?  Perhaps you ought to get a pet and learn to observe.

As I previously stated, external observations of reactions (instinctive in the case of animals) is not an indication of internal conscious awareness unless the observed entity can somehow communicate the state of their internal conscious awareness.  In humans, we can verify people's conscious awareness by means of verbal communication relating to what they are aware of.  You can't presume that animals experience the same form of conscious awareness as human beings just by external observation of instinctive reactions.  As you have previously posted, your materialistic view indicates that our conscious awareness is merely a spectator of what has already been predetermined by subconscious brain activity - so in this scenario an entirely material being would have no need for conscious awareness.

[Alan Burns]

Waffle.

Tell me Alan, since you are our resident expert on 'souls', if these 'souls' are an adjunct to our biology and act to enable 'free will' then how do they operate in children: say a 6 year old such as my younger grandson, where either his 'soul' is as immature as he is and it will mature as he will, or his 'soul' must be frustrated in that it would be capable of much more than a 6 year old can manage, which doesn't seem to be a well thought out approach by an all-wise God.

I suspect you are conflating 'souls' with brains.

The physical brain is just a very complex instrument (I believe to be designed by God) which enables the human soul to consciously interact with this material world.  As the brain matures and grows, the physically developed facilities available for interaction with the soul will improve over time.  My three year old grandson is already exhibiting traits of the God given freedom make his own conscious choices.

[Gordon]

The physical brain is just a very complex instrument (I believe to be designed by God) which enables the human soul to consciously interact with this material world.

What is the exact mode of interaction. and how can it be established that such an interaction occurs?

As the brain matures and grows, the physically developed facilities available for interaction with the soul will improve over time.

So the 'soul' is constrained while the brain of it's host matures - yes? If so, what are these neurological 'facilities' that gradually become amenable to 'souls'?
 

My three year old grandson is already exhibiting the traits of the God given freedom make his own conscious choices.

Or put more practically: his brain is developing.

However, since at age 3 you have concluded that he is making 'conscious choices' then, according to you, his 'soul' must be interacting with his brain so that by age 3 he has at least some of these 'facilities' you mention - so what are these and how do you know they are active? It seems to me that you are just asserting that this is so and that there is, therefore, the risk that you are wrongly ascribing to 'souls' what brains do naturally.

One implication of your claim is that my 6 year old grandson, who also makes choices, must have a 'soul' - so how do I check that he has?     

[torridon]

As I previously stated, external observations of reactions (instinctive in the case of animals) is not an indication of internal conscious awareness unless the observed entity can somehow communicate the state of their internal conscious awareness.  In humans, we can verify people's conscious awareness by means of verbal communication relating to what they are aware of.  You can't presume that animals experience the same form of conscious awareness as human beings just by external observation of instinctive reactions.  As you have previously posted, your materialistic view indicates that our conscious awareness is merely a spectator of what has already been predetermined by subconscious brain activity - so in this scenario an entirely material being would have no need for conscious awareness.

How on Earth can you be still peddling this nonsense after all this time ?  Engage brain Alan, start reading, your understanding here is ignorant  Do you really think that talking is the only means of communication ?  When a bird sings, it is communicating its presence to other birds,  when a peacock displays its feathers it is communicating its fitness to the ladies, dolphins communicate with each other with high pitched clicks, whales communicate using ultra low frequency songs.  Have you never had a dog growl at you ? It was telling you 'back off'.  I'm surprised you haven't already been bitten if you don't know how to read such obvious signs.  It isn't just talking that is an indicator of consciousness, we broadcast our inner state through various means. A vet administering general anaesthetic uses the same basic judgement as a hospital anaesthetist to determine when consciousness has been lost.  An unresponsive dog is no longer conscious just as is an unresponsive patient.  The subtlety of consciousness lag is completely irrelevant to this procedure. 

Do you understand this now ?

[SusanDoris]

AB

Please please respond directly, precisely and in clear, waffle and assertion-free English to Gordon's  most interesting questions. 

[ippy]

AB

Please please respond directly, precisely and in clear, waffle and assertion-free English to Gordon's  most interesting questions.

Please consider this post a thirding of Gordon's post/request to you Alan?

Many commiserations for your completely lost cause Alan, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have previously pointed out, emergent properties comprise an external perception of complex activity.  Such external observation does not in any way indicate the presence internal conscious awareness, unless the observed entity can somehow communicate the presence of their internal awareness.

It's not "pointed out, it's "misunderstood". Waves are an emergent property - are you suggesting that they stop happening when there's no-one there to see them happening?

Oh, and sentient creatures communicate their internal awareness all the time as torri has explained to you at some length.

[Alan Burns]

What is the exact mode of interaction. and how can it be established that such an interaction occurs?

Of course I can't know the exact mode of interaction between the soul an the brain.  I am not the Creator.
What I do know is that the power of interaction must exist in order to enable the human freewill we all enjoy, just as I know the power of gravity must exist to stop us falling off this earth.

So the 'soul' is constrained while the brain of it's host matures - yes? If so, what are these neurological 'facilities' that gradually become amenable to 'souls'?
 
Or put more practically: his brain is developing.

Correct.
The ability to exert conscious control will gradually improve as our physical body develops.

However, since at age 3 you have concluded that he is making 'conscious choices' then, according to you, his 'soul' must be interacting with his brain so that by age 3 he has at least some of these 'facilities' you mention - so what are these and how do you know they are active? It seems to me that you are just asserting that this is so and that there is, therefore, the risk that you are wrongly ascribing to 'souls' what brains do naturally.

It is relatively easy to distinguish between natural instinctive reactions and consciously driven choices in most human beings.

One implication of your claim is that my 6 year old grandson, who also makes choices, must have a 'soul' - so how do I check that he has?   

Can he witness to what he perceives in his own conscious perception?
Can he express conscious belief or unbelief in any context?
Can he consciously perceive meaning in sounds and words?
If so there is evidence of consciously driven control of his material brain, rather than instinctive programmed reactions to sensory data.

[Alan Burns]

How on Earth can you be still peddling this nonsense after all this time ?  Engage brain Alan, start reading, your understanding here is ignorant  Do you really think that talking is the only means of communication ?  When a bird sings, it is communicating its presence to other birds,  when a peacock displays its feathers it is communicating its fitness to the ladies, dolphins communicate with each other with high pitched clicks, whales communicate using ultra low frequency songs.  Have you never had a dog growl at you ? It was telling you 'back off'.  I'm surprised you haven't already been bitten if you don't know how to read such obvious signs.  It isn't just talking that is an indicator of consciousness, we broadcast our inner state through various means. A vet administering general anaesthetic uses the same basic judgement as a hospital anaesthetist to determine when consciousness has been lost.  An unresponsive dog is no longer conscious just as is an unresponsive patient.  The subtlety of consciousness lag is completely irrelevant to this procedure. 

Do you understand this now ?

Animal noises and behaviour are predictable, implying pre programmed responses to sensory data.  They cannot be used to presume that the animal has the conscious awareness of a human being.  The point I was making is that humans have the ability to accurately relate what they see, hear and feel to other human beings.  The animal behaviour you quote just comprises of instinctive signals to which other animals respond.  They are not able to accurately relate the content of their sensory data - they just react to it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It's not "pointed out, it's "misunderstood". Waves are an emergent property - are you suggesting that they stop happening when there's no-one there to see them happening?

Waves are just material elements reacting with each other.  We perceive and label this activity as waves in our conscious perception, but outside our conscious perception there is no labelling - it is just elements reacting with each other.  Of course the activity of the elements still occurs outside conscious perception, but there is nothing to label it as a wave.  As with all perceived emergent properties, they comprise external observation of material activity behaving in accordance with the laws of physics.  And within this activity we consciously perceive patterns or some form of functionality, but such observations can never be used to imply the presence of internal conscious awareness within material elements.

Oh, and sentient creatures communicate their internal awareness all the time as torri has explained to you at some length.

See my previous reply to Torri

[Stranger]

What I do know is that the power of interaction must exist in order to enable the human freewill we all enjoy, just as I know the power of gravity must exist to stop us falling off this earth.

You know nothing of the sort. In fact your notion "human freewill" is incoherent, self-contradictory nonsense. You can no more observe it (like the effects of gravity) than you could see a square circle.

[ippy]

Were Gordon's questions in his post 37809 on this particular thread on the forum too difficult for you to answer?

It would considerably enhance your credibility if you did answer him and the alternative, well?

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

Were Gordon's questions in his post 37809 on this particular thread on the forum too difficult for you to answer?

see #37814

[Alan Burns]

You know nothing of the sort. In fact your notion "human freewill" is incoherent, self-contradictory nonsense. You can no more observe it (like the effects of gravity) than you could see a square circle.

I do not need to observe it.
I just use it.

[Stranger]

I do not need to observe it.
I just use it.

Don't be silly. You cannot use an impossible contradiction.

[SusanDoris]

Animal noises and behaviour are predictable, implying pre programmed responses to sensory data.  They cannot be used to presume that the animal has the conscious awareness of a human being.  The point I was making is that humans have the ability to accurately relate what they see, hear and feel to other human beings.  The animal behaviour you quote just comprises of instinctive signals to which other animals respond.  They are not able to accurately relate the content of their sensory data - they just react to it.

assertion, assertion and no doubt a few fallacies thrown in for good measure. To me, it's vapid smug, empty, arrogant evasion.   I think I'll add irrational too.

[Christine]

assertion, assertion and no doubt a few fallacies thrown in for good measure. To me, it's vapid smug, empty, arrogant evasion.   I think I'll add irrational too.

Reading Alan Burns' posts, for some reason, reminds me of a line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  "And that, my Liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped."

[Gordon]

Of course I can't know the exact mode of interaction between the soul an the brain.  I am not the Creator.

So we can conclude you know nothing pertinent about 'souls'.

What I do know is that the power of interaction must exist in order to enable the human freewill we all enjoy, just as I know the power of gravity must exist to stop us falling off this earth.Correct.

Don't be daft: you have no knowledge of 'souls' and trying to use gravity as a comparison is plain stupid.

The ability to exert conscious control will gradually improve as our physical body develops.It is relatively easy to distinguish between natural instinctive reactions and consciously driven choices in most human beings.

The criteria for distinguishing are what? Of course you've conveniently missed out the key issue here - how does one distinguish between the actions of the 'soul' and biology doing what it does.

Can he witness to what he perceives in his own conscious perception?

For fucks sake, Alan: he's 6 years old.

Can he express conscious belief or unbelief in any context?
Can he consciously perceive meaning in sounds and words?
If so there is evidence of consciously driven control of his material brain, rather than instinctive programmed reactions to sensory data.

Bollocks: it is evidence only that his biology is working normally.