Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

Thanks.

Currently  furloughed which gives me more time.

I am though also watching on YouTube a series of (not lectures) his words, but lengthy descriptions of

7 great ideas in physics.

The series  is by Sean Carroll

I have to watch and repeat but it's great stuff and something  he has done while in lock down.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AeNSMJtKGc0

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

Thanks.

Currently  furloughed which gives me more time.

I am though also watching on YouTube a series of (not lectures) his words, but lengthy descriptions of

7 great ideas in physics.

The series  is by SeanI'll check it out.  Carroll

I have to watch and repeat but it's great stuff and something  he has done while in lock down.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AeNSMJtKGc0

Good stuff - thank you. I'll check it out.

[SusanDoris]

Thanks.

Currently  furloughed which gives me more time.

I am though also watching on YouTube a series of (not lectures) his words, but lengthy descriptions of

7 great ideas in physics.

The series  is by Sean Carroll

I have to watch and repeat but it's great stuff and something  he has done while in lock down.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AeNSMJtKGc0

That sounds really interesting. Having watched 'Revisitynng the Higgs-Boson' video by Sean Carroll some years ago (I tried to find it the other day but have lost the original link) and recently having finished reading 'The Serengeti Rules' I shall definitely spend some time following those links.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks.

Currently  furloughed which gives me more time.

I am though also watching on YouTube a series of (not lectures) his words, but lengthy descriptions of

7 great ideas in physics.

The series  is by Sean Carroll

I have to watch and repeat but it's great stuff and something  he has done while in lock down.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AeNSMJtKGc0

Yes it's good to take a break from atheism. Freedom of atheism and freedom from atheism and all that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes it's good to take a break from atheism. Freedom of atheism and freedom from atheism and all that.

Yeah, “freedom from atheism” is a great point. It’s shocking really isn’t it the way we have 26 atheists in the House of Lords solely because they’re atheists. And how about all those schools dedicated to their excellencies Dawkins, Harris, Dennett & Hitchens full of their separate tracts that kids have to believe because, well, their books say they must. What's that about? And can you believe the way those same darned atheist schools segregate Dawkinsian children from Harrisian children, Dennettian children from Hitchensian children etc. Imagine the social cohesion that would break out if they could be co-educated willy-nilly! Shocking! Note too the charitable status and attendant tax breaks for atheist schools that allows those pesky atheists to keep the system going just as they like. Outrageous right?

Oh, and what about that whenever a matter of great moral import is generating interest the main news channels introduce their specially invited guests with, “you’re a leading atheist, tell us what you think about…”. Awful right?

“Freedom from atheism”. Yay!

Oh, hang on though…it’s not atheism we need freedom from at all is it. Sorry, my bad….

[Alan Burns]

Hi BR. Nice to hear from you again – it’s been a while.

Quite so. One of the bigger problems AB gives himself (admittedly from a crowded field of problems) is circular reasoning. It goes like this:

1. Premise: there’s a god with a plan

2. Argument: the plan has happened, and the chances of that occurring “unguided” are too slim to make it happenstance

3. Conclusion: therefore god

You’ll notice though that Step 1 (the premise) and Step 3 (the conclusion) are the same thing (ie, "God"). That’s the circular reasoning bit, and it nullifies the whole effort. I’ve explained this to him several times but as always he ignores the problem and instead shoots off into either another fallacy or irrelevance. Then when he thinks the dust has settled, he returns time and again to the same circular reasoning. I have no idea what he gets from it, but there it is nonetheless.

Or alternately, from those who quote logic:

1.  Premise: Everything has a cause
2.  Argument: physical reactions are seen to be caused by past events
3.  Conclusion: everything must be caused by past events.

Or again, from those same sources:

1. Premise: emergent properties arise from the collective activity of simple components.
2. Argument: conscious awareness is seen to correlate with perceived neuron activity in the human brain.
3. Conclusion: conscious awareness must be an emergent property of neuron activity.

[BeRational]

Or alternately, from those who quote logic:

1.  Premise: Everything has a cause
2.  Argument: physical reactions are seen to be caused by past events
3.  Conclusion: everything must be caused by past events.

Or again, from those same sources:

1. Premise: emergent properties arise from the collective activity of simple components.
2. Argument: conscious awareness is seen to correlate with perceived neuron activity in the human brain.
3. Conclusion: conscious awareness must be an emergent property of neuron activity.

Again I think you are not right.

It's  premise 1 2 3 4 etc then conclusion. That is the argument.

Of course you have to accept the premise, and I do not accept that everything has a cause has been demonstrated

[Enki]

Or alternately, from those who quote logic:

1.  Premise: Everything has a cause
2.  Argument: physical reactions are seen to be caused by past events
3.  Conclusion: everything must be caused by past events.

Or again, from those same sources:

1. Premise: emergent properties arise from the collective activity of simple components.
2. Argument: conscious awareness is seen to correlate with perceived neuron activity in the human brain.
3. Conclusion: conscious awareness must be an emergent property of neuron activity.

These are both examples of inductive arguments and therefore your conclusions cannot be demonstrated,  only supported by the premises(arguments) as being strong or weak.

[Stranger]

Or alternately, from those who quote logic:

1.  Premise: Everything has a cause
2.  Argument: physical reactions are seen to be caused by past events
3.  Conclusion: everything must be caused by past events.

If you really think that this in any way at all represents the logic against you, you really haven't been paying any attention. For a start it's logically all over the place. It looks like a syllogism but there is no middle term to link the premisses together and lead to the conclusion.

The argument against you is that your own assertions about freedom contradict each other, but if you want a categorical syllogism, we could say:

Major premiss: Everything that changes state over time either operates as a deterministic system or not (and therefore involves randomness).
Minor premiss: Human minds change state over time.
Conclusion: Human minds either operate as deterministic systems or not (and therefore involve randomness).

As has been pointed out many times, it has nothing to do with the physical world - which may or may not be a deterministic system.

Or again, from those same sources:

1. Premise: emergent properties arise from the collective activity of simple components.
2. Argument: conscious awareness is seen to correlate with perceived neuron activity in the human brain.
3. Conclusion: conscious awareness must be an emergent property of neuron activity.

The case for the human mind being produced by the physical brain is based on a great deal of scientific evidence. It's not something you can formally deduce from a few premises.

And we're still waiting for the first hint of the logical argument you said you had...

[Alan Burns]

Major premiss: Everything that changes state over time either operates as a deterministic system or not (and therefore involves randomness).

The obvious flaw in this is that randomness may not be the default.  Things could change state from undetectable causes which are not random.  How can undetectable causes be distinguished from randomness?

[Nearly Sane]

The obvious flaw in this is that randomness may not be the default.  Things could change state from undetectable causes which are not random.  How can undetectable causes be distinguished from randomness?

The premiss does not suggest randomness is the default so your 'flaw' is just a strawman

[Stranger]

The obvious flaw in this is that randomness may not be the default.  Things could change state from undetectable causes which are not random.  How can undetectable causes be distinguished from randomness?

It's totally irrelevant whether a cause is detectable or not. The argument doesn't rely on any observations or being able to detect whether anything specific is random or not.

Perhaps we could get somewhere if you tried to explain why you think the detectability of causes would have any relevance, because I'm struggling to see in what way you have misunderstood.

[Gordon]

The obvious flaw in this is that randomness may not be the default.  Things could change state from undetectable causes which are not random.  How can undetectable causes be distinguished from randomness?

Who here has claimed that randomness is the default?

That there are unknown unknowns doesn't prevent investigation continuing provided that appropriate methods are developed and where  any findings are always subject to review and revision where required: which is how professional science operates.

By the way, how is your bespoke method for detecting 'souls' and claimed divine interventions coming along?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Or alternately, from those who quote logic:

1.  Premise: Everything has a cause
2.  Argument: physical reactions are seen to be caused by past events
3.  Conclusion: everything must be caused by past events.

Or again, from those same sources:

1. Premise: emergent properties arise from the collective activity of simple components.
2. Argument: conscious awareness is seen to correlate with perceived neuron activity in the human brain.
3. Conclusion: conscious awareness must be an emergent property of neuron activity.

You really, really need to have a look at that online book about logic that Stranger linked to a few posts back. Really though.

Anyway, as you just ignored it let's try again: can you spot the circular reasoning in the following:

1. Premise: there’s a god with a plan

2. Argument: the plan has happened, and the chances of that occurring “unguided” are too slim to make it happenstance

3. Conclusion: therefore god

It is after all your argument, so it's probably a good idea I'd have thought for you to be sure of its soundness (or not) before you try it again.

Don't you think so? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally AB, as you just ignored this too maybe you want to loop round to another problem you've given yourself. You tell us that there's an independent "you" that by some mysterious process selects from a menu of wants. Or maybe it decides what these wants are in the first place. Or something. Who knows?

Anyway, whichever bizarre ontology you think is at play it seems to end up with minds that create or choose their own wants, and then change themselves on the basis of the wants they've selected for themselves. Or something. Is that what you're trying to claim? Really though?       

[Outrider]

Or alternately, from those who quote logic:

Oh boy...

1.  Premise: Everything has a cause

Everything WITHIN THE UNIVERSE has a cause - we have no understanding of extra-universal activity in order to infer anything. Indeed, given that our best current understanding is that time itself is a part of the universe, and came into existence with it, to talk of 'causes' outside of a temporal setting defies sense; the idea of a cause requires the idea of time as a background necessity.

2.  Argument: physical reactions are seen to be caused by past events

Not an argument, an observation.

3.  Conclusion: everything must be caused by past events.

Within the univere, this appears to be the case.

Or again, from those same sources:

1. Premise: emergent properties arise from the collective activity of simple components.

Again, not a premise but an observation. Or perhaps, more accurately, a phenomenon of which 'emergent properties' is the descriptor.

2. Argument: conscious awareness is seen to correlate with perceived neuron activity in the human brain.

Again, not an argument, an observation.

3. Conclusion: conscious awareness must be an emergent property of neuron activity.

Not must, but could.  This sits alongside the absolute lack of anything else showing an effect on the process in order to come to the conclusion that consciousness is probably an emergent property of an entirely physical brain's activities.

O.

[Alan Burns]

By the way, how is your bespoke method for detecting 'souls' and claimed divine interventions coming along?

I do not need to detect what I already am.
And I do not need to detect the abundance of God's creation - it is there for all to see.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not need to detect what I already am.

But you do need to demonstrate its existence at all if you expect anyone else to take the claim “soul” seriously. That’s your problem.

And I do not need to detect the abundance of God's creation - it is there for all to see.

Where? 

[Gordon]

I do not need to detect what I already am.
And I do not need to detect the abundance of God's creation - it is there for all to see.

So, you get to make shit up without feeling the need to justify yourself - you really do have no shame, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Incidentally AB, as you just ignored this too maybe you want to loop round to another problem you've given yourself. You tell us that there's an independent "you" that by some mysterious process selects from a menu of wants. Or maybe it decides what these wants are in the first place. Or something. Who knows?

Anyway, whichever bizarre ontology you think is at play it seems to end up with minds that create or choose their own wants, and then change themselves on the basis of the wants they've selected for themselves. Or something. Is that what you're trying to claim? Really though?     

You seem to over complicate my perception of the truth behind our existence.

My own take on reality is that we are not entirely driven by past events in the same way as man made machines are.  We are aware of the past, but not dictated by it.  Our conscious awareness enables us to choose rather than react to past events.

The main difference between my take on reality and yours would appear to be in what comprises our conscious awareness.  I could never take up your view that conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions - simply by comprehending the impossibility of a single entity of awareness being generated by many discrete reactions.  You seem to believe that man made computers may well achieve self awareness given enough complexity, whereas my knowledge of IT and AI leads me to the conclusion that it will never happen, because I know self awareness requires more than physical complexity will ever achieve.  We can certainly mimic self awareness with man made machines, but it will never be the real thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to over complicate my perception of the truth behind our existence.

No, I just point out some of the contradictions it gives you but ok…

My own take on reality is that we are not entirely driven by past events in the same way as man made machines are.  We are aware of the past, but not dictated by it.  Our conscious awareness enables us to choose rather than react to past events.

Which once again leads you inevitably to your determined vs random problem that you seem to think you can resolve with magic, but ok…. 

The main difference between my take on reality and yours would appear to be in what comprises our conscious awareness.

No, the main difference is that mine isn’t logically impossible thus forcing me to rely on magic to resolve that problem but ok…

I could never take up your view that conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions…

Yes, you’ve told us before that your mind is forever closed to any reason or evidence that could show you to be wrong but ok…

- simply by comprehending the impossibility of a single entity of awareness being generated by many discrete reactions.

Except you’ve never even bothered to attempt an argument to demonstrate this supposed impossibility, preferring just to assert it to be so apparently for no validating reason at all but ok…

You seem to believe that man made computers may well achieve self awareness given enough complexity,

Yes, given the right conditions I see no insurmountable problem with that as a plausible possibility at some future time but ok…

…whereas my knowledge of IT and AI leads me to the conclusion that it will never happen,

Except your working knowledge concerns computers as they are now rather than as they could one day be, but ok….

…because I know self awareness requires more than physical complexity will ever achieve.

You don’t know that at all – you just assert it as an article of faith with no validating argument to justify the claim, but ok… 

We can certainly mimic self awareness with man made machines, but it will never be the real thing.

And you would propose to justify that remarkable claim how exactly?

Oh and what exactly do you think making a string of unqualified assertions will achieve here, and how in any case do you think doing that relates to the post you were supposedly replying to about your bizarre position that minds somehow select their own wants, then change themselves on the basis of the wants they’ve somehow selected?   

[torridon]

The main difference between my take on reality and yours would appear to be in what comprises our conscious awareness.  I could never take up your view that conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions - simply by comprehending the impossibility of a single entity of awareness being generated by many discrete reactions.  You seem to believe that man made computers may well achieve self awareness given enough complexity, whereas my knowledge of IT and AI leads me to the conclusion that it will never happen, because I know self awareness requires more than physical complexity will ever achieve..

You have no way of knowing that, so it is just assertion based on your old mate, incredulity.

If you replace the neurons in your head, one by one with prosthetic ones that fulfill exactly the same function, would a time come when you cease to be able to think ? If so, why ?

[torridon]

My own take on reality is that we are not entirely driven by past events in the same way as man made machines are.  We are aware of the past, but not dictated by it.  Our conscious awareness enables us to choose rather than react to past events.

This is contradicted by your other claim, that we have no control over our desires, and this is how we resolve conflicts, by weighing rival desires against each other.

[Stranger]

My own take on reality is that we are not entirely driven by past events in the same way as man made machines are.  We are aware of the past, but not dictated by it.  Our conscious awareness enables us to choose rather than react to past events.

Well why didn't you just say that before? That makes it all perfectly clear...



...
...



Oh, no... hang on.... wait a minute.... that's actually about the 10,000th time you've mindlessly repeated this trite, reasoning-free, contradictory nonsense. 

I could never take up your view that conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions - simply by comprehending the impossibility of a single entity of awareness being generated by many discrete reactions.

Except you're not comprehending its impossibility, you're just asserting it.

...because I know self awareness requires more than physical complexity will ever achieve.

Except you don't know any such thing, again, this is just another assertion. In order to know that you'd have to know exactly how consciousness worked and everything about the physical world.

Still waiting for the first hint the logical argument you said you had... Were you lying? Were you mistaken?

[Enki]

I do not need to detect what I already am.
And I do not need to detect the abundance of God's creation - it is there for all to see.

True to form, you simply ignore the logical arguments ranged against you and revert back to your well worn assertion based proselytising mantra, hoping, no doubt, that no one will notice how out of depth your foray into the world of logic was.