AB,
I still fail to see how an experiential level of abstraction can be held responsible for the deliberations involved in being dishonest.
I have no idea why you fail to see that given how often it’s been explained to you in clear terms, but in any case all your failure to understand demonstrates is your failure to understand. It does not though imply that the phenomenon you fail to understand is therefore impossible. You however have asserted not only impossibility, but necessary impossibility as the conclusion as a matter of “logical deduction”. No matter how many times you’re asked for it though, you will never tell us what thus supposed logical deduction entails. There are two possible reasons for this:
a) You don’t have logical deduction at all;
orb) You do have logical deduction but you want to keep it a secret. If it is option b) though, why would you want to do that?
Can you not see that…
Whenever you begin a sentence with “can you not see that…” what you actually mean is “why don’t you agree with my non-reasoning and/or wrong reasoning?” Let’s see if I’m wrong about that this time though shall we?
… your ability to conceive of two levels of abstraction could only happen from an overriding single level of abstraction needed to perceive (or imagine) the reality you try to portray?
Nope. The assemblage of parts and the consequent emergent properties just now that constitute “me” can reason their way to various conclusions. That’s all that’s happening here – no invisible magic hobgoblins are involved or necessary for “me” to experience that as thinking.
We both are able to demonstrate profound abilities to try to justify what we believe to be true…
Now you’re lying either to me or to yourself. You have no “profound ability” to try to justify your beliefs, or indeed any ability much to do that at all. For the most part you just assert them to be true, and when you do occasionally try to justify them with argument the effort always collapses quickly in a welter of contradictions, fallacies or
non sequiturs...
…but how could this be entirely driven from the deeper, more profound levels of abstraction you claim to underlie the experiential level?
...Like this one – the argument from personal incredulity (again). The phenomena we’ve been discussing (consciousness, “free” will etc) sit happily within explanatory paradigms that are well-observed and well-understood (emergence for example). How the process works at a functional level is a fascinating topic, and one on which various groups have been and are working. Maybe one day one of them will have a full process map; maybe some other process will be found; maybe we’ll never figure it out. Here’s the thing though: for the purpose of your “argument” though,
it doesn't matter. Really, it doesn’t. It’s enough to say, “here’s an explanatory model that’s rational, observable and consistent into which these phenomena appear to fit well. There is therefore no good reason to abandon that model simply because the details of the processes involved haven’t been worked out, let alone to embrace in the alternative explanations that are irrational, not observable and inconsistent, and about which we have absolutely no functional details of any kind”.
You know this already though don’t you. You don’t think evolutionary theory should have been abandoned because genes hadn’t been discovered (to take torri’s excellent example); you don’t think washing your hands to prevent infection should have been abandoned before germs were discovered etc. In other words, you don’t think that good, observable, reasonable models for anything should have been abandoned because their functional processes hadn't been discovered – with the sole exception that is of the good, observable, reasonable models we have for consciousness, for “free” will, for any of the phenomena in fact that require magic solutions solely to justify your religious beliefs.
And that old son is called special pleading – yet another of the countless fallacies on which you rely.
Atoms and molecules can only react - they do not perceive, neither do they have choice. Perception and choice are not just a level of abstraction - they are a reality which exists beyond the bounds of physical reactions.
The emergent property of consciousness can perceive and can make choices though – and all we need for that is material stuff interacting in specific ways. You’ve had emergence explained to you many times though, so why not address that rather than return over and over again to the same stupidities that it falsifies?
Oh, and despite being asked I see you’ve just ignored once again the various rebuttals and falsifications I gave to you a few posts back. What does this behaviour say about you do you think?
