Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Toridon

Agree with what you (and all the other rational posters!) say, but just popping in to say that birds too hav a sense of smell. It's in the book! Bird Sense by Prof Tim Birkhead.

Quite right, yes, thanks.  Updated the reply to capture that.

[Alan Burns]

Information exists whenever data is processed - and you don't need a human for that.  When owl's take visual stimuli and work out where they need to stoop to catch a field mouse, they've turned data into information - so far as we can tell they don't have a mental framework capable of the abstraction of knowing that's what they've done, but they've done it nonetheless.  When a computer puts keyboard inputs through an algorithm to produce movement of a sprite on a screen it's turned data into information, and is equally unaware of it.  The owl has been programmed by evolution, the computer by a human operator, but both operate as machines.

What do you have that raises consciousness to something different in nature from that activity, and not merely a more complex example of exactly the same sort of data processing?

I agree that what we perceive as information is used and processed to facilitate survival in the evolution scenario.  The processing is just a series of reactions to data which have been predicated by past experiences to gain survival advantage.  Nowhere in this process is there any requirement for conscious awareness. 

Information exists in our material brains as binary data in a similar way that computers hold data.  The computer can react to this data just as animals react to the data in their material brains.  What is at question here is how this binary data gets interpreted into conscious awareness by the single entity of perception which comprises "you".  Using the word "emergence" does not explain how binary data gets perceived into conscious awareness.  The ultimate problem facing biologists is how information contained within many individual brain cells gets perceived rather than reacted to.  We can envisage lots of information being transferred within the neural network of our brain cells, but the ultimate point at which it gets perceived into conscious awareness remains elusive.

[Gordon]

I agree that what we perceive as information is used and processed to facilitate survival in the evolution scenario.  The processing is just a series of reactions to data which have been predicated by past experiences to gain survival advantage.  Nowhere in this process is there any requirement for conscious awareness. 

Or, in the case of our species, wings - so what? Different stokes for different folks species.

Information exists in our material brains as binary data in a similar way that computers hold data.  The computer can react to this data just as animals react to the data in their material brains.  What is at question here is how this binary data gets interpreted into conscious awareness by the single entity of perception which comprises "you".  Using the word "emergence" does not explain how binary data gets perceived into conscious awareness.  The ultimate problem facing biologists is how information contained within many individual brain cells gets perceived rather than reacted to.  We can envisage lots of information being transferred within the neural network of our brain cells, but the ultimate point at which it gets perceived into conscious awareness remains elusive.

So, 'don't fully know' and 'so we keep investigating' are conclusions that come to mind: the problem with those two holding positions is what exactly, Alan?

[Outrider]

I agree that what we perceive as information is used and processed to facilitate survival in the evolution scenario.  The processing is just a series of reactions to data which have been predicated by past experiences to gain survival advantage.  Nowhere in this process is there any requirement for conscious awareness.

You misunderstand the point I'm making - I'm not saying that consciousness is in any way required for this to happen, I'm asking what makes you think that consciousness isn't just another (admittedly complex) example of this? 

Information exists in our material brains as binary data in a similar way that computers hold data.  The computer can react to this data just as animals react to the data in their material brains.  What is at question here is how this binary data gets interpreted into conscious awareness by the single entity of perception which comprises "you".

No, the question is why do you think 'consciousness' is a different type of process?

The ultimate problem facing biologists is how information contained within many individual brain cells gets perceived rather than reacted to.

No, that's not a problem for biologists who largely don't care about consciousness.  It's a problem for neurologists who want to try to maintain that consciousness is qualitatively different from other types of brain activity, but they - like you - don't have any justification for making the distinction.

We can envisage lots of information being transferred within the neural network of our brain cells, but the ultimate point at which it gets perceived into conscious awareness remains elusive.

The exact point at which visual stimuli 'become' awareness of an image isn't well defined, because it isn't a point.  It doesn't get changed into something, the process is the conscious activity; consciousness is just the subjective term we use for the particular feedback loop that is our brain monitoring the processing of other stimuli that it's doing, there is no magic extrinsic 'other' dipping a toe into the water to see what's going on.

O.

[Enki]

You misunderstand the point I'm making - I'm not saying that consciousness is in any way required for this to happen, I'm asking what makes you think that consciousness isn't just another (admittedly complex) example of this? 

No, the question is why do you think 'consciousness' is a different type of process?

No, that's not a problem for biologists who largely don't care about consciousness.  It's a problem for neurologists who want to try to maintain that consciousness is qualitatively different from other types of brain activity, but they - like you - don't have any justification for making the distinction.

The exact point at which visual stimuli 'become' awareness of an image isn't well defined, because it isn't a point.  It doesn't get changed into something, the process is the conscious activity; consciousness is just the subjective term we use for the particular feedback loop that is our brain monitoring the processing of other stimuli that it's doing, there is no magic extrinsic 'other' dipping a toe into the water to see what's going on.

O.

I have a large measure of agreement here and just a couple of ideas to throw into the mix:

It seems to me that conscious awareness is a graduated brain state rather than a thing. For instance I would suggest that a person who is inebriated has a reduced state of conscious awareness compared with a person who is clear headed and focused.

It could well be that conscious awareness allows the brain to select between the data being absorbed, concentrating on 'important' data rather than 'unimportant' data. This would allow the brain to make more efficient and speedier decisions.

[torridon]

Information exists in our material brains as binary data in a similar way that computers hold data.  The computer can react to this data just as animals react to the data in their material brains.  What is at question here is how this binary data gets interpreted into conscious awareness by the single entity of perception which comprises "you".  Using the word "emergence" does not explain how binary data gets perceived into conscious awareness.  The ultimate problem facing biologists is how information contained within many individual brain cells gets perceived rather than reacted to.  We can envisage lots of information being transferred within the neural network of our brain cells, but the ultimate point at which it gets perceived into conscious awareness remains elusive.

Underpinning all this is a rather out of date metaphor of the brain as a computer.  We no longer see the brain as an organic version of a silicon chip digital computer providing cortical storage space into which memories can be stored and later recovered from.  Rather what happens is the soft neural wiring is reconfigured by every new experience and your internal model of the external world is a structural neural recapitulation of that outside world.  This is totally unlike the way digital computers work.  Thus, to answer what 'I' am, we need to think in terms of the the patterns of synaptic connections as they stand in the current moment.  Next moment, some novel experience comes along and 'I' get reconfigured accordingly.

[Stranger]

Events can be both within your conscious control and entirely defined by past events.

There can be no conscious control if I am entirely defined by past events.  Control is not reaction to past events.  Control is not defined by past events.  Control is achieved by conscious interaction with the present - not by reactions to the past, because we have no control over what has already happened.

Argument by redefinition of words and foot-stamping, again. 

You haven't pointed to any contradiction at all, you're just asserting that "conscious control" means the way you want it to work. If we are the product of the past (as we must logically be) then our conscious choices are both the product of the past and our own genuine will.

And you yet again totally ignored the question: how can anybody demonstrate that they could have written different words from the ones they did, in exactly the same circumstance?

And you still haven't got anywhere in addressing the logic that tells us your version of 'freedom' is self-contradictory.

[Alan Burns]

You haven't pointed to any contradiction at all, you're just asserting that "conscious control" means the way you want it to work. If we are the product of the past (as we must logically be) then our conscious choices are both the product of the past and our own genuine will.

The phrase, "own genuine will" is therefore meaningless.
In a scenario where every event is entirely defined by past events, there is nowhere for your own genuine will to exist as a separate entity.

[Stranger]

The phrase, "own genuine will" is therefore meaningless.

Not only is this another basic mistake in reasoning (fallacy), in this case an appeal to consequences, it's also drivel. How can the ability to think and do as you wish not be your genuine will?

In a scenario where every event is entirely defined by past events, there is nowhere for your own genuine will to exist as a separate entity.

This is just gibberish. How can a will exist as a separate entity? To the extent your will is not entirely due to the person you are and the circumstances, it must be random, and to the extent that the person you are is not because of your past, it must also be random. You and I are beings that change state over time, so the logic I gave before (#40759) stands.

And you're still totally ignored my question: how can anybody demonstrate that they could have written different words from the ones they did, in exactly the same circumstance?

[Enki]

The phrase, "own genuine will" is therefore meaningless.
In a scenario where every event is entirely defined by past events, there is nowhere for your own genuine will to exist as a separate entity.

The phrase "own genuine will" is completely meaningful.

"own" means it is part of you.

"genuine" means it is not affected by extraneous influences, it emphasises 'own'.

"will" simply means the brain's faculty or power to' decide on and initiate action'.

There is no reason and no evidence that one's 'own genuine will' exists as a separate entity,  but rather it is a term describing part of the brain's processing capabilities.   

[Alan Burns]

And you're still totally ignored my question: how can anybody demonstrate that they could have written different words from the ones they did, in exactly the same circumstance?

I believe the only way I could demonstrate this reality to you would be to pray for your salvation and meet up with you in heaven, where all will be revealed. 

[torridon]

I believe the only way I could demonstrate this reality to you would be to pray for your salvation and meet up with you in heaven. 

Nah, you'd be doing that simply because you wanted to, that's all.  That doesn't demonstrate freedom from your desires.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I believe the only way I could demonstrate this reality to you would be to pray for your salvation and meet up with you in heaven, where all will be revealed. 

So are you now resiling from your previous claim to be able to to demonstrate it in the here and now, and resorting instead to just a statement of your personal faith about that?

[Roses]

I believe the only way I could demonstrate this reality to you would be to pray for your salvation and meet up with you in heaven, where all will be revealed. 

That is not demonstrating reality just your personal belief, which has nothing to back it up.

[Stranger]

I believe the only way I could demonstrate this reality to you would be to pray for your salvation and meet up with you in heaven, where all will be revealed. 

So your previous oft repeated claims that our "freedom" was "demonstrable" were, what? A mistake? A lie?

[Gordon]

I believe the only way I could demonstrate this reality to you would be to pray for your salvation and meet up with you in heaven, where all will be revealed. 

Handy that: if you are wrong then you'd never know it.

[Alan Burns]

So your previous oft repeated claims that our "freedom" was "demonstrable" were, what? A mistake? A lie?

No.
I was just referring to the apparent impossibility of getting through to you personally that our God given freedom is a demonstrable reality.

[Alan Burns]

Handy that: if you are wrong then you'd never know it.

Looks like I will have to include you in my prayer list, Gordon, so we can sort it out in heaven rather than trying to penetrate your over active fallacy detector. 

[Stranger]

No.
I was just referring to the apparent impossibility of getting through to you personally that our freedom is a demonstrable reality.

Do you even understand what 'demonstrable' means, because it doesn't look like you do? If you cannot demonstrate it to me (or the other people who've asked), in what way can it be said to be demonstrable?

To be clear, I'm talking specifically about your claim of what 'freedom' means, namely, that we have the ability to have done differently (without randomness). Note that this is not the same as the ability to think, contemplate, or make choices (these are abilities nobody is disputing), neither is it about what role consciousness plays in those processes.

Neither does your usual motte and bailey tactic of claiming that we have obviously carefully chosen (or have the 'conscious freedom' to choose, or similar) the words we use and then trying to claim that 'choice' means the same thing as your version of 'freedom', actually amount to a demonstration of said version of 'freedom'.

So, please, the floor is yours, actually demonstrate that your could have done something differently in exactly the same circumstances, and then, in the unlikely case that you even honestly attempt to do that, demonstrate that any difference wasn't random.

I can't wait....

[Alan Burns]

Do you even understand what 'demonstrable' means, because it doesn't look like you do? If you cannot demonstrate it to me (or the other people who've asked), in what way can it be said to be demonstrable?

To be clear, I'm talking specifically about your claim of what 'freedom' means, namely, that we have the ability to have done differently (without randomness). Note that this is not the same as the ability to think, contemplate, or make choices (these are abilities nobody is disputing), neither is it about what role consciousness plays in those processes.

Neither does your usual motte and bailey tactic of claiming that we have obviously carefully chosen (or have the 'conscious freedom' to choose, or similar) the words we use and then trying to claim that 'choice' means the same thing as your version of 'freedom', actually amount to a demonstration of said version of 'freedom'.

So, please, the floor is yours, actually demonstrate that your could have done something differently in exactly the same circumstances, and then, in the unlikely case that you even honestly attempt to do that, demonstrate that any difference wasn't random.

I can't wait....

The form of demonstration you keep insisting on is impossible because we can't roll back time.
What we do have is our ability to consider the probability (or absolute improbability) that everything we think, do or say has been entirely predetermined by past events.  At the moment we invoke a conscious choice, I agree that the choice we make is inevitable, but what I contest is that every single event leading up to that choice was also entirely predetermined by the past.  The clue is in the nature and capabilities of our conscious awareness to interact rather than react.

[Gordon]

Looks like I will have to include you in my prayer list, Gordon, so we can sort it out in heaven rather than trying to penetrate your over active fallacy detector. 

Don't be silly: anyway I've upgraded my fallacy detector, since the old one was was taking such a hammering when encountering your posts.

[Gordon]

The form of demonstration you keep insisting on is impossible because we can't roll back time.
What we do have is our ability to consider the probability (or absolute improbability) that everything we think, do or say has been entirely predetermined by past events.  At the moment we invoke a conscious choice, I agree that the choice we make is inevitable, but what I contest is that every single event leading up to that choice was also entirely predetermined by the past.  The clue is in the nature and capabilities of our conscious awareness to interact rather than react.

How do you define 'absolute improbability'? Please include your workings.

Please stop using 'predetermined', since it is a dishonest use of language.

[Stranger]

The form of demonstration you keep insisting on is impossible because we can't roll back time.

Either you can demonstrate it Alan, or you can't, and if you can't should not keep on claiming that it is demonstrable - because that would then be what honest people call a 'lie'.

As for rolling back time, that works fine as a thought experiment because one outcome would show determinism (we couldn't have done differently) and the other would show randomness (there couldn't be a reason for the difference). In order to demonstrate the ability to do differently, you would actually need to do the literal experiment, which is why your claim that the ability is demonstrable is so nonsensical.

What we do have is our ability to consider the probability (or absolute improbability) that everything we think, do or say has been entirely predetermined by past events.

Regardless of the fact that predetermined is not what is being claimed (because choices are determined at the time by who we are and the circumstances) you need to show some working if you want people to accept the "absolute improbability" you claim, that appears to be based on nothing but your own blind faith and personal incredulity.

Isn't it about time you at least made an attempt at the "sound logic" you claimed you had, or had the basic honesty to admit you can't?

[Alan Burns]

Regardless of the fact that predetermined is not what is being claimed (because choices are determined at the time by who we are and the circumstances)

If every event that ever happens is determined by past events, then everything is predetermined by the past.  Whatever comprises "you" will just be a conduit for the endless chains of cause and effect to take their course.

[Alan Burns]

Please stop using 'predetermined', since it is a dishonest use of language.

See above