Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

What do you think is the default position here? What is the status quo?

As always, to not accept a claim unless there has been some reasoning or evidence to support it. In this instance, not only is Alan's proposition, that it's impossible to explain our abilities with cause and effect, being made without the slightest hint of either, his proposed alternative, as currently outlined, is self-contradictory and hence logically impossible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As always, to not accept a claim unless there has been some reasoning or evidence to support it. In this instance, not only is Alan's proposition, that it's impossible to explain our abilities with cause and effect, being made without the slightest hint of either, his proposed alternative, as currently outlined, is self-contradictory and hence logically impossible.

Let me ask you again, what is the default position here?, what is the status quo?

[Stranger]

Let me ask you again, what is the default position here?, what is the status quo?

About what? I was addressing a specific claim, namely that it's impossible to explain human abilities with cause and effect.

In this instance, the situation is that there are only two logical possibilities: cause and effect alone (minds are deterministic systems) or cause and effect with some truly or effectively random element (minds are not deterministic systems).

Although Alan does love to conflate the two, neither option has anything to do with whether minds are entirely physical processes in the brain, whether they employ some currently unknown process, or even if we have souls.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Let me ask you again, what is the default position here?, what is the status quo?

There is no “default position” or “status quo” as such, but as you know already we have a limited understanding so far of consciousness, but we do have some – obtained from scans, artificial stimuli, the study of brain-damaged patients etc. We also have the well-understood phenomenon of emergence, with which consciousness as a potential emergent property is well-aligned. As these are the data we have, they constitute what I presume you mean by the “status quo”.

What AB does though is to point the gaps in knowledge, abandon entirely the partial model we do have and insert instead an explanation (“soul/god”) that’s neither necessary nor sufficient as an explanation. He does this either by assertion, or by committing one or multiple errors in reasoning to justify his claim. He also tries shifting the burden of proof by demanding a complete explanation, as if in some way its non-availability would support his reason- and evidence-free speculations.

Clear now?         

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The reality I refer to is more than just an experience.

As, so far, a description of your experience is all you have then no it isn’t. If ever you produce an argument to show whey the feeling you experience is also the explanation for it, then you’ll have something to talk about.

Our ability to think and consciously guide our thoughts to meaningful conclusions is an undeniable reality.

No, it’s just a description of your experience of these things. If you think there’s a separate “we” to select which thoughts to have rather than an integrated “we” whose thoughts more likely arise unbidden from our sub-conscious, then you have an enormous task ahead of you to demonstrate that. If ever you did though, for sure a Nobel prize would await you...   
 

Your problem is to come up with a plausible explanation for how such conscious guidance can be invoked from within the endless chains of uncontrollable, physically determined reactions in a material brain.

No it isn’t “my problem” at all. We already have a potential model for that, but in any case what you’re trying here is a basic fallacy called shifting the burden of proof. Even if my answer was a flat out “don’t know”, that would provide you with not one scrap of an iota of a smidgin of a justification for whatever reason- and evidence-free speculation you wanted to reify to fill the gap.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There is no “default position” or “status quo” as such, but as you know already we have a limited understanding so far of consciousness, but we do have some – obtained from scans, artificial stimuli, the study of brain-damaged patients etc. We also have the well-understood phenomenon of emergence, with which consciousness as a potential emergent property is well-aligned. As these are the data we have, they constitute what I presume you mean by the “status quo”.

What AB does though is to point the gaps in knowledge, abandon entirely the partial model we do have and insert instead an explanation (“soul/god”) that’s neither necessary nor sufficient as an explanation. He does this either by assertion, or by committing one or multiple errors in reasoning to justify his claim. He also tries shifting the burden of proof by demanding a complete explanation, as if in some way its non-availability would support his reason- and evidence-free speculations.

Clear now?         

Of course there is a default position, In the claim of God the status quo, so many atheists inform me is atheism. I have not seen you telling them there is no default issue why is this? This has nothing to do with who is right or wrong just what the default and status quo position in this case is. If you can help here then good if you can't. How people are putting there case is neither here nor there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We also have the well-understood phenomenon of emergence         

We might ......You've never demonstrated it IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course there is a default position, In the claim of God the status quo, so many atheists inform me is atheism.

Which has nothing to do with AB’s claims about consciousness, “free” will etc but if you now want to shift ground to theism/atheism specifically the “status quo” is that theistic and any other any truth claims should be treated as a speculations until and unless they can be justified, generally with reason and evidence.     

I have not seen you telling them there is no default issue why is this?

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. I merely corrected AB on the various mistakes he made. You (not AB) have now introduced the idea of a “default”, though I don’t know why.   

This has nothing to do with who is right or wrong just what the default and status quo position in this case is.

Of course it has everything to do with who is right and wrong. When AB (or you) make various claims and assertions and the reasons he/you attempt to justify those claims are wrong (ie, logically invalid) then there’s no sound reason to treat those claims as true (ie, “right”).   

If you can help here then good if you can't. How people are putting there case is neither here nor there.

No, “how people are putting their case” is everything. If they justify their case with invalid reasoning (as AB and you routinely do) then it can safely be ignored; if they justify their case with valid reasoning on the other hand (as AB and you are unable to do) then there’s a case to be taken seriously.

This shouldn’t be difficult to understand.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We might ......You've never demonstrated it IMHO.

Then your opinion is wrong. Not only have I demonstrated it on many occasions here with examples, I've also pointed you to a very good book on the subject (Steven Johnson's "Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software"). 

[Outrider]

Of course there is a default position, In the claim of God the status quo, so many atheists inform me is atheism.

You're conflating claims of reality with belief.

I'm an atheist. My position on the notion of 'god' is the default, which is 'I don't know'. I don't know because there's no good evidence, and when there's no good evidence in support of something I proceed on the understanding that it's probably not the case until either the evidence changes or there's some pressing consequence that means I need to change my stance despite the evidence.

I don't believe because there's insufficient evidence; I don't know because there's insufficient evidence. Those two are not the same, and one could change without the other needing to.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then your opinion is wrong. Not only have I demonstrated it on many occasions here with examples, I've also pointed you to a very good book on the subject (Steven Johnson's "Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software").

Really. My recollection is that when we last discussed this you thought consciousness was due to either a lot of intelligence put together as it were or some kind of evolved intelligence and a phyletic gradualist evolution at that. Emergent properties are not that but novel properties. I believed I pointed you to a New Scientist article by Dr Paul Davies the physicist. I believe Johnson's training and Academic field is English and the writer of pop science....That's not to say you haven't failed to understand Johnson.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're conflating claims of reality with belief.

I'm an atheist. My position on the notion of 'god' is the default, which is 'I don't know'. I don't know because there's no good evidence, and when there's no good evidence in support of something I proceed on the understanding that it's probably not the case until either the evidence changes or there's some pressing consequence that means I need to change my stance despite the evidence.

I don't believe because there's insufficient evidence; I don't know because there's insufficient evidence. Those two are not the same, and one could change without the other needing to.

O.

Well at least you have said no good evidence rather than no good reason.
I would be interested in why you think science is able to yield answers to stuff it has difficulty with/finds impossible to handle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Really. My recollection is that when we last discussed this you thought consciousness was due to either a lot of intelligence put together as it were or some kind of evolved intelligence and a phyletic gradualist evolution at that. Emergent properties are not that but novel properties. I believed I pointed you to a New Scientist article by Dr Paul Davies the physicist. I believe Johnson's training and Academic field is English and the writer of pop science....That's not to say you haven't failed to understand Johnson.

When you get stuff wrong there are no half measures are there. Emergence is the phenomenon of complex structures arising spontaneously from components and rules which themselves lack the characteristics of the whole. It’s essentially “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” in observable practice and, so far at least, the phenomenon of consciousness seems to be well aligned with it.     

Oh and if you want to ad hom Johnson you’d better take it up too with the extensive list of academics who peer reviewed his work.

(I see by the way that, as ever, you’ve just run away again from you recent roster of errors re AB, “default” positions and the burden of proof etc. Funny that.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

When you get stuff wrong there are no half measures are there. Emergence is the phenomenon of complex structures arising spontaneously from components and rules which themselves lack the characteristics of the whole. It’s essentially “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” in observable practice and, so far at least, the phenomenon of consciousness seems to be well aligned with it.     

Oh and if you want to ad hom Johnson you’d better take it up too with the extensive list of academics who peer reviewed his work.

It's novel properties not just structures. Not sure then what the whole being greater than the sum of the parts has got to do with novel properties that looks sloppy and more akin to literary flourish than anything else. Does wetness for instance have a particular structure? Is consciousness an identifiable structure? What is it that consciousness spontaneously arise from is it the material or is it the organisation of the material or will any material do as long as it is organised in the same way?

Is pop science peer reviewed? I'm not sure? Could you count Johnson as Davies' peer? Again , not sure.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's novel properties not just structures. Not sure then what the whole being greater than the sum of the parts has got to do with novel properties that looks sloppy and more akin to literary flourish than anything else. Does wetness for instance have a particular structure? Is consciousness an identifiable structure? What is it that consciousness spontaneously arise from

Is pop science peer reviewed? I'm not sure?

"Structures" is a term generally used for emergent phenomena, and structures have properties. And yes, Johnson's book was peer-reviewed as you'd have known if you'd bothered to read it.

In any case, if you're trying to deflect from your last suite of screw ups by introducing a different subject then it's not working. Start a thread on emergence if you actually want to talk about it.   

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"Structures" is a term generally used for emergent phenomena, and structures have properties. And yes, Johnson's book was peer-reviewed as you'd have known if you'd bothered to read it.

In any case, if you're trying to deflect from your last suite of screw ups by introducing a different subject then it's not working. Start a thread on emergence if you actually want to talk about it.   

 

No screw ups, burden of proof needs an established status quo or default position. In a discussion about consciousness who holds the default position? Is it Dennett?, Is it Searle? or is it Chalmers? or who?

Now you have made, as far as I can see, consciousness a more complex form of intelligence. That is not emergence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No screw ups, burden of proof needs an established status quo or default position. In a discussion about consciousness who holds the default position? Is it Dennett?, Is it Searle? or is it Chalmers? or who?

Yes screw ups (for the reasons that were explained to you and that you’ve predictably ignored) and you’re still not getting it. The “default position” for ANY truth claim is to discount it until and unless its proponent can justify the claim with reason and, ideally, evidence. Whether the claim happens to be about consciousness, germs causing diseases or unicorns is for this purpose irrelevant.

The burden of proof screw up (of which you’re especially fond and that AB has recently tried) is to assert the truth claim and then to insist that others tell you how it should be justified. 

Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

Now you have made, as far as I can see, consciousness a more complex form of intelligence. That is not emergence.

Wrong again. Neurons, synapses, electro-chemical activity etc are not individually “intelligent” by any usual definition of that term, but working collectively intelligence spontaneously emerges from them.

Again, why is this difficult for you to grasp?

[Alan Burns]

You are also still dishonestly misrepresenting the logical argument against you with the use of words like "uncontrollable" and "physically determined".

I fully understand the logic you keep quoting.
You claim that every event must have a previous cause.
My contention is that this logic means that everything must be entirely determined from past events, and since we have no control over past events, I am fully entitled to use the word "uncontrollable" in regard to those events.  And if we live in an entirely material world, all events would be a result of physically determined reactions.  So please enlarge upon your reason for objecting to me using these terms.

My argument is simply based upon a deduction that in order to achieve the conscious freedom we all use and enjoy, there must be a means to generate a cause which is not entirely shackled to the fall out from past events, but deliberately invoked from our present state of conscious awareness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes screw ups (for the reasons that were explained to you and that you’ve predictably ignored) and you’re still not getting it. The “default position” for ANY truth claim is to discount it until and unless its proponent can justify the claim with reason and, ideally, evidence. Whether the claim happens to be about consciousness, germs causing diseases or unicorns is for this purpose irrelevant.

The burden of proof screw up (of which you’re especially fond and that AB has recently tried) is to assert the truth claim and then to insist that others tell you how it should be justified. 

Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

Wrong again. Neurons, synapses, electro-chemical activity etc are not individually “intelligent” by any usual definition of that term, but working collectively intelligence spontaneously emerges from them.

Again, why is this difficult for you to grasp?

I'm sorry but the most favourite atheist default position oft announced here and else where is that atheism is the default position in the question of God. That should read that the universe is just what we can empirically detect as the status quo.

So all Burden of proof arguments have a status quo or default position.
In law this is ''innocent until proved guilty'', With God it is claimed by atheists to be that which can empirically be demonstrated. With Alan Burn's conception of consciousness, the default position, the status quo is.........what?

I know neurones have to work together to produce intelligence. What has that got to do with consciousness?

That is why there is no screw up here just a simple request. Are you trying to offer some service involving turd polishing skill on this forum or something?

[Stranger]

No screw ups, burden of proof needs an established status quo or default position.

Which could easily be "we don't know".

In a discussion about consciousness who holds the default position? Is it Dennett?, Is it Searle? or is it Chalmers? or who?

Nobody has actually settled the matter of consciousness, so we don't know. What the evidence to date suggests is that it is generated by the brain somehow.

[Stranger]

I fully understand the logic you keep quoting.

Apparently not....

You claim that every event must have a previous cause.

No, it's that if that is not the case, then the only alternative, for anything that changes with time, is some random element.

My contention is that this logic means that everything must be entirely determined from past events, and since we have no control over past events, I am fully entitled to use the word "uncontrollable" in regard to those events.

Not without entirely redefining the word and making it mean impossible, self-contradictory magic. There are instances of control everywhere, both in the natural world, and in technology. So, no, you are not entitled to change the meaning of words in English.

And if we live in an entirely material world, all events would be a result of physically determined reactions.  So please enlarge upon your reason for objecting to me using these terms.

Because it's totally irrelevant to the logic of the determinism. Things that change with time are either deterministic systems or they aren't.

My argument is simply based upon a deduction that in order to achieve the conscious freedom we all use and enjoy, there must be a means to generate a cause which is not entirely shackled to the fall out from past events, but deliberately invoked from our present state of conscious awareness.

No matter how often you repeat this meaningless bullshit, it will still be meaningless bullshit. If you can't be arsed to even try to explain it properly or justify it with anything remotely like logic, what's the point in the totally mindless repetition?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which could easily be "we don't know".

Nobody has actually settled the matter of consciousness, so we don't know. What the evidence to date suggests is that it is generated by the brain somehow.

Yeah, I think that's fair.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry but the most favourite atheist default position oft announced here and else where is that atheism is the default position in the question of God.

Again, the “default position” for ANY truth claim is that it should be discounted until and unless there’s a sound reason to accept it. That’s as true for the truth claim “god” as it is for the truth claims “germs cause diseases” and “unicorns”.

This really shouldn’t be hard to grasp, even for you
 

That should read that the universe is just what we can empirically detect as the status quo.

No it shouldn’t. This is just your burden of proof screw up re-stated. Finding the arguments attempted to justify the claim “god” to be invalid means only finding argument attempted to justify the truth claim “god” to be invalid. Nothing more, nothing less. No part of that entails or requires the additional statement “because the universe is necessarily materialistic”.     

So all Burden of proof arguments have a status quo or default position.

Not in the way you think they don’t, but the inasmuch as there is a “default” position it’s simply that it’s the job of the proponent of the truth claim to justify it. If he thinks the tools of science aren’t up to it, it’s also his job by the way to propose a different method instead.   

In law this is ''innocent until proved guilty'', With God it is claimed by atheists to be that which can empirically be demonstrated. With Alan Burn's conception of consciousness, the default position, the status quo is.........what?

Why do you keep lying about this?   

I know neurones have to work together to produce intelligence. What has that got to do with consciousness?

You really haven’t the faintest idea about emergence have you. Not a clue. Emergence occurs when the constituent parts of a system INTERACT, generally in relatively simple but consistent ways.   

That is why there is no screw up here just a simple request. Are you trying to offer some service involving turd polishing skill on this forum or something?

Not only have you screwed up multiple times, you’ve repeated some of your screw ups here. Rather than continually disappearing down the same rabbit holes of dull incomprehension though why, after all these years, don’t you at least try to engage with the arguments and explanations you’re actually given so you can respond to those rather than respond to your own fantasy versions of them? 

[Alan Burns]

Not without entirely redefining the word and making it mean impossible, self-contradictory magic. There are instances of control everywhere, both in the natural world, and in technology. So, no, you are not entitled to change the meaning of words in English.

What is deemed to be labelled as control in the natural world can also be viewed as an unintended accident of nature which apparently produces something seen to be beneficial in some way.

Control in technology is an extension of the controlling capability of humans using their ability to consciously interact with this world to produce an intended result.  The ultimate source of this control will emanate from the human minds responsible for the design.

I maintain that consciously driven interaction is essential for control rather than unavoidable reactions to past events.

[Outrider]

I would be interested in why you think science is able to yield answers to stuff it has difficulty with/finds impossible to handle.

I'd be interested in where you determine I was referring to science? I mean, the scientific method is my default, and it's arguably the best method for reviewing evidence and coming to reliable conclusions that we've developed, but whatever methods are out there I'm ready to listen.

O.