Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Termites and random processes all very well.
But certainly not classified as simulated universe.

No-one suggested otherwise.

The unconscious processes you quote may account for other theories of universe formation but not simulated universe.

And your reasoning to justify that belief would be what?

And that is what NDGT, Chalmers and Myers are all talking about.

I have no idea why you’re so concerned with what these people talked about, and long ago we identified where you’d completely misrepresented NdGT in any case. If you want to disinter the exchanges by all means do so, but it tells us nothing about what you Vlad think and why.

When a termite group make a termite mound they are making a termite mound. Nothing nix zero nada is being simulated here.

And for all you know when a simulator (or simulators) caused a universe all they did was to establish the starting conditions and the laws of physics and time did the rest. You never did understand what an analogy entails (you share that with AB by the way) but the point remains that huge complexity can arise from causal agents that had no knowledge of or interest in the complexity that would subsequently emerge from a relatively simple beginning.

Again, if you want to attach all sorts of characteristics to a simulator as necessary for the conjecture “SU” (let alone that the simulator(s) would be “personal” in some way) then the burden of proof is with you to justify the claim.

Why don’t you?   

PS Oh, and about enki’s apology for your misrepresentation the way?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Misrepresation of what I have said which wasnt Myers was arguing for intelligent design but arguing it was  intelligent design.

I didn't say that you did say that, and in any case I still have no idea why a spat between two science writers tells you anything at all about why you believe what you believe.   

Enki i'm sorry

Good man.

Bluehillside  I'm sorry you lost the plot at an early stage.

Not even close. You asserted that the conjecture "SU" is a theistic idea. It's been shown to you that it isn't. You've ignored the explanations.

Which of us would you say has "lost the plot" here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No-one suggested otherwise.

And your reasoning to justify that belief would be what?

I have no idea why you’re so concerned with what these people talked about, and long ago we identified where you’d completely misrepresented NdGT in any case. If you want to disinter the exchanges by all means do so, but it tells us nothing about what you Vlad think and why.

And for all you know when a simulator (or simulators) caused a universe all they did was to establish the starting conditions and the laws of physics and time did the rest. You never did understand what an analogy entails (you share that with AB by the way) but the point remains that huge complexity can arise from causal agents that had no knowledge of or interest in the complexity that would subsequently emerge from a relatively simple beginning.

Again, if you want to attach all sorts of characteristics to a simulator as necessary for the conjecture “SU” (let alone that the simulator(s) would be “personal” in some way) then the burden of proof is with you to justify the claim.

Why don’t you?   

PS Oh, and about enki’s apology for your misrepresentation the way?

This all sounds very interesting Hillside but again almost utterly off the point.

[torridon]

..
Our conscious freedom allows our thoughts to soar far beyond what can be defined by physical reactions and absence of constraints, or what is needed for survival.
..

That is just assertion, what is your evidence for such a claim ?

[torridon]

Do you not have the freedom to drive your own imagination?

If I am trying to be creative, I cannot just choose which ideas to have.  Ideas come to me, thoughts cross my mind.  If I get good ideas, I am happy, but I will never be a Da Vinci or a Mozart. My point being that we don't really choose our words or thoughts, rather they come to us out of deeper levels of mind.  I've got no control over what comes to mind, it is all yielded up by subconscious processes.  Can you choose to remember things you have forgotten ?  Such things are not under 'our' control.

[Stranger]

The absence of constraints is not an explanation for our freedom to "think outside the box".  Neither are uncontrollable reactions to past events.

Our conscious freedom allows our thoughts to soar far beyond what can be defined by physical reactions and absence of constraints, or what is needed for survival.

More utterly unsupported assertions.

Where is your logic or any hint of you being honest enough to admit you don't have any?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No-one suggested otherwise.

And your reasoning to justify that belief would be what?

I have no idea why you’re so concerned with what these people talked about, and long ago we identified where you’d completely misrepresented NdGT in any case. If you want to disinter the exchanges by all means do so, but it tells us nothing about what you Vlad think and why.

And for all you know when a simulator (or simulators) caused a universe all they did was to establish the starting conditions and the laws of physics and time did the rest. You never did understand what an analogy entails (you share that with AB by the way) but the point remains that huge complexity can arise from causal agents that had no knowledge of or interest in the complexity that would subsequently emerge from a relatively simple beginning.

Again, if you want to attach all sorts of characteristics to a simulator as necessary for the conjecture “SU” (let alone that the simulator(s) would be “personal” in some way) then the burden of proof is with you to justify the claim.

Why don’t you?   

PS Oh, and about enki’s apology for your misrepresentation the way?

Ndgt  stated SU theory that fateful day in 2016

Myers stated in his view in his blog that it was really intelligent design creationism

At the very debate Chalmers states that it was a"naturalistic version of the god hypothesis

Lisa Randall stated that SU is only of interest if you could test the theory that THE universe was simulated.

You cant so that puts paid to any notion of this being naturalistic



So putting that together SU is intelligent design creationism....a version of the God hypothesis and even if it were a naturalistic version..

They think its all over

Its still a version of the God hypothesis.

It is now.

[Alan Burns]

Why? In what way does anything that humans do need the ability to have done differently without randomness?

Foot-stamp, foot-stamp.

Dishonest misrepresentation. Nobody denies your ability to choose.

In what way do your choices need the ability to have done differently without randomness?
Why does that need the ability to have done differently without randomness?

To claim that we could not have chosen differently under the same circumstances effectively denies our ability to choose and replaces it with an inevitable reaction.
Choices are not reactions.
This is not "foot stamping", as you wish to label it.  It is a statement of truth.

[torridon]

To claim that we could not have chosen differently under the same circumstances effectively denies our ability to choose and replaces it with an inevitable reaction.
Choices are not reactions.
This is not "foot stamping", as you wish to label it.  It is a statement of truth.

Not a statement of truth, that is wrong.  What it is, at best, is a description of how it seems, a description of our intuitions about choice.

[Gordon]

To claim that we could not have chosen differently under the same circumstances effectively denies our ability to choose and replaces it with an inevitable reaction.

So what?

Choices are not reactions.

Says who?

This is not "foot stamping", as you wish to label it.  It is a statement of truth.

Yes it is: no it isn't.

[Stranger]

To claim that we could not have chosen differently under the same circumstances effectively denies our ability to choose and replaces it with an inevitable reaction.

Fallacy-fest again.    All this has been pointed out so many time, why don't you even try to learn anything?

Firstly, this is a false dilemma fallacy. You have provided not a hint of a reason to think it can't be both (redefining the word "choose" aside). Even if you did, this would be an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

What's more, this doesn't answer my actual question: in what way does anything we do require that we could have done differently (without randomness)? The whole idea of being able to have done differently without randomness is nonsensical, so you've first got to turn it into something comprehensible and then say why it is necessary.

Choices are not reactions.
This is not "foot stamping", as you wish to label it.

Until you can provide some supporting reasoning, instead of just the endlessly repeated bare assertions, foot-stamping seems like a perfect description because you are ignoring all the reasoning that has been put to you and just insisting you are right over, and over, and over, and over again - often using exactly the same phrases. There is no evidence of any actual thought being involved beyond "but I'm right, so I can ignore everything everybody else says and just keep on insisting on it".

It is a statement of truth.

See? Just more thought- and reasoning-free foot-stamping.

Where is the logic you claimed to have? Will you have the honesty to admit you can't provide any?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This all sounds very interesting Hillside but again almost utterly off the point.

That you've just had your arguments and assertions dismantled and you've ignored that doesn't make the falsifications "off the point". If now you want to drag the point away from your original contention that the SU conjecture is a "theological idea" and instead rehash a brief spat between two science writers you're on your own. "SU conjecture = theological idea" is still utter nonsense either way, and that IS the point.

[Alan Burns]

Fallacy-fest again.    All this has been pointed out so many time, why don't you even try to learn anything?

Firstly, this is a false dilemma fallacy. You have provided not a hint of a reason to think it can't be both (redefining the word "choose" aside). Even if you did, this would be an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

What's more, this doesn't answer my actual question: in what way does anything we do require that we could have done differently (without randomness)? The whole idea of being able to have done differently without randomness is nonsensical, so you've first got to turn it into something comprehensible and then say why it is necessary.

Until you can provide some supporting reasoning, instead of just the endlessly repeated bare assertions, foot-stamping seems like a perfect description because you are ignoring all the reasoning that has been put to you and just insisting you are right over, and over, and over, and over again - often using exactly the same phrases. There is no evidence of any actual thought being involved beyond "but I'm right, so I can ignore everything everybody else says and just keep on insisting on it".

See? Just more thought- and reasoning-free foot-stamping.

Where is the logic you claimed to have? Will you have the honesty to admit you can't provide any?

No, it is you doing the foot stamping by refusing to admit the difference between choice and reaction.  You cannot just claim they are the same.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No, it is you doing the foot stamping by refusing to admit the difference between choice and reaction.  You cannot just claim they are the same.

Presumably because, so far at least, you've never come up with a single cogent argument to justify the belief that they're not the same. Oh, and he doesn't "just claim" that they are the same - he uses reason and argument to justify the belief. That's your problem remember - you use terms like "blatant" and "obvious" precisely because you have no arguments to support you.

[Gordon]

No, it is you doing the foot stamping by refusing to admit the difference between choice and reaction.  You cannot just claim they are the same.

Who says they can't be the same?

[Alan Burns]

Oh, and he doesn't "just claim" that they are the same - he uses reason and argument to justify the belief.

But why can't you see the obvious truth that in order to use reason and argument he is employing his conscious freedom to think up these reasons and arguments?  The freedom he uses to do this is the freedom he is trying to deny, - which renders the so called reasons and arguments to be false.

The onus is on you to show how such reasons and arguments were just derived from inevitable reactions rather than consciously controlled thoughts?

[Stranger]

No, it is you doing the foot stamping by refusing to admit the difference between choice and reaction.  You cannot just claim they are the same.

I'm not just claiming it, am I? I've explained to you multiple times (and so have other posters) why the only alternative is that randomness is involved, which is something you've just asserted isn't the case either.

Unlike you, I'm perfectly prepared to listen to any logic you want to present. The problem is that you end up just arguing over the meaning of words, which cannot tell us anything at all about reality. However, please do feel free to present an argument that the human ability to choose ("Pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives." or "Decide on a course of action.") cannot possibly also be inevitable, given all the circumstances at the time. Then you can go on to explain how something that could have been different, despite all the circumstances at the time, could achieve this without something that wasn't due to any of the circumstances at the time (randomness).

The floor is yours...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But why can't you see the obvious truth that in order to use reason and argument he is employing his conscious freedom to think up these reasons and arguments?  The freedom he uses to do this is the freedom he is trying to deny, - which renders the so called reasons and arguments to be false.

Because that’s not "the" truth at all – obvious or otherwise. What you’re describing is an experience – just as touching the keys in front of you is a description of an experience – with no effort at all to construct an argument to justify the belief that the experience OF something is also the explanation FOR it. 

The onus is on you to show how such reasons and arguments were just derived from inevitable reactions rather than consciously controlled thoughts?

Yes, and the answers are that the alternative is logically impossible without invoking magic as your way out of the determined vs random binary, that consciousness aligns perfectly well with the phenomenon of emergence, that you’ve never even bothered to describe or provide a mean to investigate claims of the supernatural, that… and on and on.

Does it really not trouble you at all that those who have reasoned arguments that falsify your claims don’t need to resort to calling assertions “obvious”, “blatant” etc whereas that’s all you have – and not one jot of a hint of a scintilla of the logic you once claimed to support you but that you’ve never, ever managed to produce?

Something?

Anything?

[Stranger]

But why can't you see the obvious truth...

"It's obvious, innt?" is not a rational argument.

...that in order to use reason and argument he is employing his conscious freedom to think up these reasons and arguments?  The freedom he uses to do this is the freedom he is trying to deny, - which renders the so called reasons and arguments to be false.

Back to reasoning-free foot-stamping with a side-helping of dishonest misrepresentation. I have never once denied the "freedom" necessary to produce arguments. It is you who are making (so far) totally unsupported claims about the nature of that "freedom" (how it works).

The onus is on you to show how such reasons and arguments were just derived from inevitable reactions rather than consciously controlled thoughts?

It's still a false dilemma - unless you can argue otherwise. You are making the claim here, remember? What's more your claim is self-contradictory for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times and you just ignore in favour of mindless repetition.

Where is your logic?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Because that’s not "the" truth at all – obvious or otherwise. What you’re describing is an experience – just as touching the keys in front of you is a description of an experience – with no effort at all to construct an argument to justify the belief that the experience OF something is also the explanation FOR it. 

An experience of freedom would not be capable of yielding the same result as the freedom needed to guide your thought processes to a viable conclusion.  In your example, fingers do touch the keys because it is their force fields which are touching.  Force fields are just as much part of the finger as atoms.  If the atoms actually touched there would be colliding electrons and ensuing chaos.

Yes, and the answers are that the alternative is logically impossible without invoking magic as your way out of the determined vs random binary, that consciousness aligns perfectly well with the phenomenon of emergence, that you’ve never even bothered to describe or provide a mean to investigate claims of the supernatural, that… and on and on.

But the truth you continue to avoid is the absolute improbability of being able to reach any viable conclusion by physical reactions alone without the freedom needed to guide your thought processes.

Does it really not trouble you at all that those who have reasoned arguments that falsify your claims don’t need to resort to calling assertions “obvious”, “blatant” etc whereas that’s all you have – and not one jot of a hint of a scintilla of the logic you once claimed to support you but that you’ve never, ever managed to produce?

The reality implies that we have much more freedom than can be achieved through physically determined reactions of material elements.  The source of this freedom is beyond your understanding, but it must exist because you exist.  You are the source.

[torridon]

An experience of freedom would not be capable of yielding the same result as the freedom needed to guide your thought processes to a viable conclusion. 
..
But the truth you continue to avoid is the absolute improbability of being able to reach any viable conclusion by physical reactions alone without the freedom needed to guide your thought processes.
..
The reality implies that we have much more freedom than can be achieved through physically determined reactions of material elements.

You've asserted this and similar without justification before.  So, again, show your reasoning so we can follow along, otherwise it just looks like a statement of incredulity.

[torridon]

The source of this freedom is beyond your understanding, but it must exist because you exist.  You are the source.

Unjustified assertion and non-sequitur.  I don't see how this makes any sense.  Whatever freedom I enjoy is down to the fact that I exist ?  The way you think is baffling to me.  Whatever freedom I have lies not in me, but in the lack of constraints infringing me; such things are not part of me, they are external to me

[torridon]

To claim that we could not have chosen differently under the same circumstances effectively denies our ability to choose and replaces it with an inevitable reaction.

But what would it mean to say we could have chosen differently in the same circumstances ?  To express it a little more formally :

I chose a rather than b given situation c

The claim of free will then says that I could have :

chosen b rather than a given situation c

If this were true, that renders c irrelevant to the resolution of choice. ie the choice is random, the outcome has no causal relation to the relevant situation.

[Gordon]

The source of this freedom is beyond your understanding, but it must exist because you exist.  You are the source.

Not 'God' then?

Aside from the logical matters you just ignore, it is important to remember that always underpinning all your own bizarre ideas is the even more bizarre notion of 'God', even if you don't mention it.

You're peddling a fantasy, Alan.   

[Alan Burns]

Unjustified assertion and non-sequitur.  I don't see how this makes any sense.  Whatever freedom I enjoy is down to the fact that I exist ?  The way you think is baffling to me.  Whatever freedom I have lies not in me, but in the lack of constraints infringing me; such things are not part of me, they are external to me

The way I think is down to me.  I use my God given freedom to think, as we all do.  I guide my own thoughts because I have the power to do so.