Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

And at this point, since children are being mentioned, I'mgoing to mention them too. What saddens me greatly is the thought of the thousandsof children who will grow up with the same useless, mind-numbingly daft ideas.

[torridon]

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.

And I've already debunked this nonsense already more times than I've had hot dinners.  Do you ever actually read anything that is written ?  Clearly a dog does not have human consciousness, it has canine consciousness, but that does not mean it is unconscious nor does it mean that its responses to stimuli are 'pre-programmed' nor does it mean that its responses are solely instinctive, many animal behaviours are learned, which means they are not instinctive and will vary from individual to individual. Their communication with others may not be so sophisticated as human communication, but it is good enough within the context of their species.

I hope this is sinking in, so I don't have to repeat it all over again in 6 months time.

[ippy]

see #37814

In your first line of the post 37814 you're referring to starts with as near as it can be a tantamount to being an assertion that this god idea of yours really does exist as follows underlined:

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

If you remember N M nicknamed 'Sparky', where he asserted the Bible substantiated his assertion that the Bible proves the Bible, you appear to be going down an exactly similar path to Sparky, yet you otherwise seem to be quite an intelligent person to me?

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[Sebastian Toe]

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

Until we get a clear definition of the mode of interaction between soul and brain, we must reasonably conclude that there is no such thing as a soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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.

You’ve missed it completely again. Emergent properties exist pretty much everywhere, from shop groupings to computer games to flocking birds to, yes, consciousness. Sometimes there are people who observe these things, and sometimes they give them names too. Whether they are observed or named though changes nothing – they exist nonetheless.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp this Alan, even for you.     

See my previous reply to Torri

I have, and I’ve seen torri blast it out of the water too. Again. You have this weird, anthropocentric, solipsistic notion that little old you are somehow universally significant rather than just another iteration of a naturally occurring and localised phenomenon that’s evolved across many species over the millennia. Possibly if this was the year 1500 you’d have some excuse for it, but these days there’s none at all – reason and science have long replaced superstitions as the most robust explanations we have for the phenomena we observe. Why not try at least to catch up rather than continue to make a fool of yourself here?

[Alan Burns]

And I've already debunked this nonsense already more times than I've had hot dinners.  Do you ever actually read anything that is written ?  Clearly a dog does not have human consciousness, it has canine consciousness, but that does not mean it is unconscious nor does it mean that its responses to stimuli are 'pre-programmed' nor does it mean that its responses are solely instinctive, many animal behaviours are learned, which means they are not instinctive and will vary from individual to individual. Their communication with others may not be so sophisticated as human communication, but it is good enough within the context of their species.

I hope this is sinking in, so I don't have to repeat it all over again in 6 months time.

Sorry Torri, but you have never debunked this argument.  Conscious awareness is not necessarily indicated by observed animal behaviour.  The conscious awareness we experience as human beings does not require any form of outwardly perceived reaction.  It is internal awareness of information, not reaction to it.  Animals can certainly process their sensory information to produce externally observed reactions, but as we know from computers, processing information does not require conscious awareness.

Your constant attempts to quote animal behaviour does not explain how a single entity of conscious awareness can emerge from discrete material elements.  If you really do believe that animals experience the conscious awareness we have as human beings, it would be more evidence of God's creative power.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’ve missed it completely again. Emergent properties exist pretty much everywhere, from shop groupings to computer games to flocking birds to, yes, consciousness.

But just labelling consciousness as an emergent property explains nothing.
Whatever is perceived to emerge from material behaviour cannot be labelled as conscious awareness, because the emergent property needs to be definable in terms of the material reactions from which it emerges.  No such definition exists for conscious awareness.

[Gordon]

Sorry Torri, but you have never debunked this argument.  Conscious awareness is not necessarily indicated by observed animal behaviour.  The conscious awareness we experience as human beings does not require any form of outwardly perceived reaction.  It is internal awareness of information, not reaction to it.  Animals can certainly process their sensory information to produce externally observed reactions, but as we know from computers, processing information does not require conscious awareness.

Your constant attempts to quote animal behaviour does not explain how a single entity of conscious awareness can emerge from discrete material elements.  If you really do believe that animals experience the conscious awareness we have as human beings, it would be more evidence of God's creative power.

Sorry, Alan, but what you say here is utter pish for reasons explained to you many times.

[Gordon]

But just labelling consciousness as an emergent property explains nothing.

On the contrary: emergence is a sound explanation.

Whatever is perceived to emerge from material behaviour cannot be labelled as conscious awareness, because the emergent property needs to be definable in terms of the material reactions from which it emerges.  No such definition exists for conscious awareness.

This is just the fallacy of composition dressed up in your usual hyperbolic word salad approach. 'Conscious awareness' seems to be no more than just biology at work.

[torridon]

Sorry Torri, but you have never debunked this argument.  Conscious awareness is not necessarily indicated by observed animal behaviour.  The conscious awareness we experience as human beings does not require any form of outwardly perceived reaction.  It is internal awareness of information, not reaction to it.  Animals can certainly process their sensory information to produce externally observed reactions, but as we know from computers, processing information does not require conscious awareness.

All creatures, humans included, broadcast information about their inner mind state in various ways.  Humans can tell using language, but we also tell in many other subtle ways, a raising of the eyebrow indicating quizzical look, a deepening skin tone betrays embarrassment,  widened eyes suggest fear.  Most other creatures also broadcast their internal mind state in such ways, when a dog growls, it broadcasts his anger, his tail wagging broadcasts his happiness.  Any pet owner will confirm this.  Vets use similar signs to read when a pet has lost consciousness under anaesthetic.  The outward signs of inner sentience do not prove inner sentience, but proof is not sought, what we have is evidence and reason to believe that outward signs are good indicators of inner mind state.  It is good enough for anaesthetists in many cases, and it is good enough for vets administering anaesthetics to animals.  If it is a good enough guide for them, what is your problem ?  Have you got some evidence to doubt it ?  Have you written to the British Veterinary Association to let them know there is no point in administering general anesthesia to animals because they are already unconscious ?  I doubt it because you know you would be dismissed as a ridiculous crank.  This is just idiotic nonsense you save for posting on the internet probably.

[Stranger]

But just labelling consciousness as an emergent property explains nothing.
Whatever is perceived to emerge from material behaviour cannot be labelled as conscious awareness, because the emergent property needs to be definable in terms of the material reactions from which it emerges.  No such definition exists for conscious awareness.

Quite apart from the obvious problems with this (that have been explained to you many times and you just ignore), it is breathtakingly hypocritical. You have nothing remotely resembling an explanation. The fact is that even if we knew nothing whatsoever about brains and the working of human minds - your impossible, contradictory nonsense, would still be obviously wrong.

You really need to address the fact that your version of freedom contains a blatant contradiction - and stop running away from any discussion of it and trying to hide behind your incredulity regarding evidence-based conclusions.

[Roses]

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.

Now that is one of your sillier comments, human self awareness, like that of any animal species, is created by the brain.

[SteveH]

Human self awareness, like that of any animal species, is created by the brain.

Paulum rosae locuta; causa finita est.

[Alan Burns]

All creatures, humans included, broadcast information about their inner mind state in various ways ...

You cannot use observed animal responses to somehow presume to know the state of their inner mind.  As you have previously concluded in past postings, responses in a material brain will be predetermined by subconscious brain activity before they kick in to conscious awareness, which leads to the conclusion that such responses cannot be used to indicate the state of conscious awareness.

[Alan Burns]

You really need to address the fact that your version of freedom contains a blatant contradiction - and stop running away from any discussion of it and trying to hide behind your incredulity regarding evidence-based conclusions.

My version of freedom is essential for any meaningful discussion to take place.

Your flawed logic would involve the bizarre concept of one set of predetermined physical reactions somehow contradicting another set of predetermined physical reactions with no feasible means to conclude which set is correct.

[Gordon]

You cannot use observed animal responses to somehow presume to know the state of their inner mind.  As you have previously concluded in past postings, responses in a material brain will be predetermined by subconscious brain activity before they kick in to conscious awareness, which leads to the conclusion that such responses cannot be used to indicate the state of conscious awareness.

Alan

Will you please stop using 'predetermined' since it is disingenuous, as has been explained.

btw the rest of your post is the same old regurgitated nonsense.

[SteveH]

My version of freedom is essential for any meaningful discussion to take place.

Your flawed logic would involve the bizarre concept of one set of predetermined physical reactions somehow contradicting another set of predetermined physical reactions with no feasible means to conclude which set is correct.

Exactly! I've said the same myself a few times, but the pretentious philosophasters on here just can't see it.

[Gordon]

My version of freedom is essential for any meaningful discussion to take place.

Your flawed logic would involve the bizarre concept of one set of predetermined physical reactions somehow contradicting another set of predetermined physical reactions with no feasible means to conclude which set is correct.

Nope

'Physical' is utterly irrelevant, as has been pointed out to you often, since you're failing to address the determined vs random issue.

[Enki]

You cannot use observed animal responses to somehow presume to know the state of their inner mind.  As you have previously concluded in past postings, responses in a material brain will be predetermined by subconscious brain activity before they kick in to conscious awareness, which leads to the conclusion that such responses cannot be used to indicate the state of conscious awareness.

If I hit my finger with a hammer, I suffer pain, and I am aware of this because I am conscious. Observation of my responses would be evidence to the observer that I feel pain. If I am unconscious, I am not aware and I do not feel any pain. Observation would show no response at all.

Similarly it would seem a dog would feel pain if it were conscious, and likewise we would see pain responses in the animal. If the animal were unconscious, observation would show no response at all.

As we have a great deal of evidence for a dog's nervous system and brain activity, just as we have for humans, then it is surely sensible to suggest that the dog would also be aware of the pain. Hence it is conscious also.

If we go down your path, which suggests that we cannot use observed animal responses to somehow presume to know the state of their inner mind then this must remain true for all human beings(apart from yourself) also. 

[Stranger]

My version of freedom is essential for any meaningful discussion to take place.

Not only is this an utterly baseless, reasoning- and evidence-free assertion, your version of freedom doesn't even make sense - it is quite literally devoid of any meaning. Something that is inherently self-contradictory can't possibly be essential - or even possible.

Your flawed logic...

You keep on asserting that it's flawed but you've never once been able to point out a single flaw.

...would involve the bizarre concept of one set of predetermined physical reactions somehow contradicting another set of predetermined physical reactions with no feasible means to conclude which set is correct.

And this is just a silly, simple-minded misrepresentation of the argument against you.

Misrepresenting the opposing view in order to encourage incredulity is not only a rather dishonest way to argue, it's also rather pointless when your own view (as currently presented) is self-contradictory and hence impossible.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

[Enki]

My version of freedom is essential for any meaningful discussion to take place.

Your flawed logic would involve the bizarre concept of one set of predetermined physical reactions somehow contradicting another set of predetermined physical reactions with no feasible means to conclude which set is correct.

Your version of 'freedom' simply consists of you asserting a 'soul' for which you have not the slightest evidence and which includes not having a clue how it works, where it is located or even how it interacts with the brain. Others have given logical and rational arguments why the idea of a 'soul' doesn't seem to make much sense and are distinctly skeptical unless or until some evidence at least is forthcoming. You have ignored these arguments, basically just continuing to assert your conviction in the presence of a 'soul'.

This state of affairs has been repeated endlessly but now you seem to be saying that any meaningful discussion can only come about if others are willing to accept your version of 'freedom', which they have already demolished. Sorry, Alan, you don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion,  meaningful or not,  and, especially when you distort the meanings of words to suit your own prejudices(e.g. choice, predetermined, freedom).

[Stranger]

Exactly! I've said the same myself a few times, but the pretentious philosophasters on here just can't see it.

Well do feel free to offer your own explanation of how a choice can be free from any randomness, meaning that it was entirely due to all its antecedents and yet not fully determined by all its antecedents...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But just labelling consciousness as an emergent property explains nothing.

More dishonesty. No-one “just labels” consciousness as an emergent property. Rather emergence as a phenomenon is well-documented and well understood – emergence is simply a property an entity has as a whole that its component parts do not have individually. Given the vast complexity of brains there’s no particular reason to exempt consciousness from this paradigm as the most likely explanation, and certainly there’s no good reason to reject emergence in favour of magic that has not logic or evidence of any kind to support it.

Whatever is perceived to emerge from material behaviour cannot be labelled as conscious awareness, because the emergent property needs to be definable in terms of the material reactions from which it emerges.  No such definition exists for conscious awareness.

More idiocy. All that’s necessary to deduce that emergence is the most likely explanation for consciousness is to understand what emergence entails, and to find no reason to exclude consciousness from that model. All emergent properties are “definable in terms of the material reactions from which they emerge” as you put it as a generalised principle – many such phenomena are far too complex to be able to document every separate event that gives rise to them, but that doesn’t change the basic principle. You always ignore this but what you’re attempting here is the same as asserting thunder to be too complex to be “definable” with reference to weather systems, therefore Thor.

It’s just plain stupid, and you should stop doing it.

[torridon]

You cannot use observed animal responses to somehow presume to know the state of their inner mind.  As you have previously concluded in past postings, responses in a material brain will be predetermined by subconscious brain activity before they kick in to conscious awareness, which leads to the conclusion that such responses cannot be used to indicate the state of conscious awareness.

Clearly animal communication is good enough, for their context, if that were not the case then the species as a whole would be dysfunctional and go extinct.  Animals, especially social animals need to communicate effectively so their communication needs to be up to scratch.  Birds sing to mark territory and attract makes, apes bare their teeth to signal aggression.  Have you never been confronted by a growling dog ?  Most people can read its state of mind sufficiently well from that signalling and approach with caution.  These might not be as sophisticated as human verbal exchanges, but the level of complexity of communication is appropriate to the level of complexity of the animal's mind.  Emotional states in other animals will be simpler than in humans and their communication is appropriate to that.

Consciousness lag is irrelevant to this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Exactly! I've said the same myself a few times, but the pretentious philosophasters on here just can't see it.

You can’t be serious can you? Of course his “version of freedom” isn’t “essential for any meaningful discussion to take place”. That’s idiotic.

First, meaningful discussion takes place quite readily at the level of abstraction that’s the everyday lived experience – that there’s a very different underlying explanation for the experience of “free” will that more cogently explains what’s actually happening doesn’t change that one bit.

Second, as Stranger keeps explaining and AB just blithely ignores it’s not that his “version of freedom” is just wrong – it’s that it must necessarily be wrong because it relies on logically impossible reasoning.

To put it another way, AB is mired in not even wrong territory but lacks the honesty ever to address the problem despite having it explained to him in very simple times over and over again.