Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

I make no apologies for repeating these points made several times, but my freedom to deliberately invoke the act of repeating them offers validation that such freedom is a reality - not an illusion.

All this suggests is that you still don't understand the meaning of 'freedom'. Freedom is merely an absence of constraints, and we feel free, by default, if we are not aware of any constraints.  If we have learned one thing from neuroscience over recent decades, it is this - that we are not aware of all the stuff going on under the hood.  Our awareness, the thoughts we have, the perceptions we have, the choices we make, these are all outcomes of activity going on under the hood at the cellular level.  So the fact that we feel free to think, ponder, choose is not surprising.  It doesn't require us to invent fantastical explanations for it involving timeless magical souls existing outside of cause and effect

[Stranger]

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.

Which is trying to redefine a word, which is routinely for natural systems such body temperature regulation in warm blooded animals (e.g. Control of body temperature), to exclusively mean your self-contradictory notion of human free will. You seem to be deliberately misusing words (you tried the same thing, multiple times, with 'deterministic'), to make the opposing view look subjectively less plausible, instead of using sound arguments, because, so it would seem, you have no idea how to do the latter.

What's more, you still seem to be stuck in thinking that "consciously driven interaction" is somehow incompatible with determinism. You have never once even tried to properly justify that (except by similarly redefining 'interaction'). The impossibility of your version of free will is a totally different, and totally independent, question to that of how much consciousness is involved in making choices. Yet you endlessly try to pretend that it's a choice between the two. It's like I've made a point about the limits of human hearing and you keep on telling me about seeing in colour.

You don't appear to be even reading (at least with any comprehension) most of the responses you get. How about forgetting the script you made up fifty years ago, and engage your mind with what is actually being said here and now?

[Alan Burns]

You seem to be deliberately misusing words ....

How you can come up with this accusation if you believe that the act of deliberation is just an unavoidable reaction to past events which are beyond my conscious control?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
   
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.   

The definition of emergence is easily found Hillside and anyone who finds it will see you are rather light on the point that the emergent is a novel entity or property not found in any constituent parts of the system.

Under the definitions then, a concept that consciousness equals lots of, or more sophisticated intelligence would be wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The definition of emergence is easily found Hillside and anyone who finds it will see you are rather light on the point that the emergent is a novel entity or property not found in any constituent parts of the system.

As I’ve noted before, one of your problems with just misrepresenting people is that you’re so crap at it. Here for example is me just a few replies ago: “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” (Reply 42987) .

Can you see the “which themselves lack the characteristics of the whole” part? Can you though?

If you can, why even bother lying about that?

Oh, and I see that you’ve just cut and run again from the other rebuttals to your various screw ups I gave you. Funny that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All this suggests is that you still don't understand the meaning of 'freedom'. Freedom is merely an absence of constraints, and we feel free, by default, if we are not aware of any constraints.  If we have learned one thing from neuroscience over recent decades, it is this - that we are not aware of all the stuff going on under the hood.  Our awareness, the thoughts we have, the perceptions we have, the choices we make, these are all outcomes of activity going on under the hood at the cellular level.

Cells are not conscious.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Cells are not conscious.

Kangaroos can't walk backwards. What point do you think you're making?

[Stranger]

How you can come up with this accusation if you believe that the act of deliberation is just an unavoidable reaction to past events which are beyond my conscious control?

You really aren't reading (or not comprehending) the answers your getting. I've answered this 'point' so many times, including in the post you were replying to (and edited almost all of it out). You're just a stuck record. What do you hope to gain by just repeating the same nonsense that has already been answered countless times before?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Kangaroos can't walk backwards. What point do you think you're making?

That Torridon seems to be implying that consciousness is the sum of what is going on at the cellular level. This seems to be opposite of emergence. Consciousness is the outcome of more sophisticated tissue organisation. Intelligence isn't the outcome of what is happening at the cellular level since we can have AI which is not based cell function.

[Alan Burns]

You really aren't reading (or not comprehending) the answers your getting. I've answered this 'point' so many times, including in the post you were replying to (and edited almost all of it out). You're just a stuck record. What do you hope to gain by just repeating the same nonsense that has already been answered countless times before?

Sorry, I must have missed your explanation, or not realised that it was an explanation, so can I please ask again -

How you can come up with this accusation if you believe that the act of deliberation is just an unavoidable reaction to past events which are beyond my conscious control?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That Torridon seems to be implying that consciousness is the sum of what is going on at the cellular level. This seems to be opposite of emergence.

He’s implying no such thing. He’s well aware that emergent phenomena have properties that the constituent parts do not have.

Consciousness is the outcome of more sophisticated tissue organisation.

What are you trying to say here? So far as we can tell, consciousness appears to be an emergent property of vast numbers of the constituent parts of brains interacting.   

Intelligence isn't the outcome of what is happening at the cellular level…

Yes it is, or at least that’s what the most credible model we have tells us.

…since we can have AI which is not based cell function.

That’s just a non sequitur. Artificial intelligence does not invalidate the explanation for the naturalistic version of it.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As I’ve noted before, one of your problems with just misrepresenting people is that you’re so crap at it. Here for example is me just a few replies ago: “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” (Reply 42987) .

Can you see the “which themselves lack the characteristics of the whole” part? Can you though?

If you can, why even bother lying about that?

Oh, and I see that you’ve just cut and run again from the other rebuttals to your various screw ups I gave you. Funny that.

Well it's good to see you departing your reductionist approach in favour of holism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

He’s implying no such thing. He’s well aware that emergent phenomena have properties that the constituent parts do not have.

What are you trying to say here? So far as we can tell, consciousness appears to be an emergent property of vast numbers of the constituent parts of brains interacting.   

so consciousness it isn't going on at the cellular level

Yes it is, or at least that’s what the most credible model we have tells us.

That’s just a non sequitur. Artificial intelligence does not invalidate the explanation for the naturalistic version of it.

Except if it is to do with organisation rather than substrate.

[Alan Burns]

Emergence is the phenomenon of complex structures arising spontaneously from components and rules which themselves lack the characteristics of the whole

How can you presume that the "complex structure" arising out of material reactions can define conscious awareness if there is no known definition of conscious awareness?  Unless you can define how conscious awareness manifests in material terms, you can't presume that it emerges from nothing but material reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How you can come up with this accusation if you believe that the act of deliberation is just an unavoidable reaction to past events which are beyond my conscious control?

What on earth is the matter with you? You’ve had this explained countless times before now – if you keep ignoring the explanation, what’s the point of giving it to you yet again?

(Wearily) “the act of deliberation” is the sensation we have of a separate “I” somehow floating free of antecedents and causality. However superficially persuasive though, that doesn’t alter the fact that the evidence points to thoughts occurring unbidden from the subconscious, no matter how much it doesn’t feel that way. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well it's good to see you departing your reductionist approach in favour of holism.

You've just been caught in (yet) another lie. Why have you just ignored that?

[Alan Burns]

(Wearily) “the act of deliberation” is the sensation we have of a separate “I” somehow floating free of antecedents and causality. However superficially persuasive though, that doesn’t alter the fact that the evidence points to thoughts occurring unbidden from the subconscious, no matter how much it doesn’t feel that way.

So the "I" in me is just a sensation.
So why am "I" being accused of an act of deliberation if the "I" in me does nor really exist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

so consciousness it isn't going on at the cellular level

Again, so far as we can tell not at the individual cell level, no. Consciousness appears to me an emergent property of countless cells INTERACTING with each other. How can I make this any clearer for you?   

Except if it is to do with organisation rather than substrate.

Irrelevant gibberish. Try answering the rebuttal you were just given. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How can you presume that the "complex structure" arising out of material reactions can define conscious awareness if there is no known definition of conscious awareness?  Unless you can define how conscious awareness manifests in material terms, you can't presume that it emerges from nothing but material reactions.

1. It’s “reason”, not “presume”.

2. We do have a definition of ”conscious awareness” (look it up). What we don’t have yet is a robust explanation for it.   

3. You’ve committed a non sequitur (yet another piece of false reasoning). There are various phenomena that aren’t fully understood that nonetheless align very well with the explanatory model of emergence. Gravity is one such for example, and there's no good reason to exclude consciousness from the same paradigm.     

[Stranger]

Sorry, I must have missed your explanation, or not realised that it was an explanation...

It's been repeated so many times, I can only assume that either you're not paying attention, this is simply a lie, or you you have serious memory problems.

How you can come up with this accusation if you believe that the act of deliberation is just an unavoidable reaction to past events which are beyond my conscious control?

Because it's not beyond your "conscious control" - assuming that's a thing, which is an entirely unrelated question, which is something else I've explained endless times before and you've ignored.

You are behaving as the person you are (apparently forgetful, lacking in attention, or dishonest).

[Alan Burns]

It's been repeated so many times, I can only assume that either you're not paying attention, this is simply a lie, or you you have serious memory problems.

Because it's not beyond your "conscious control" - assuming that's a thing, which is an entirely unrelated question, which is something else I've explained endless times before and you've ignored.

You have never explained how conscious control can be implemented within a series of cause and effect events in which every event is entirely defined by unavoidable reaction to previous events.

Neither have you explained how I can be personally accused of deliberate lies or miss representation or deliberate acts of ignoring within the same scenario of unavoidable chains of reaction.  How could I have possibly done anything different?

[Gordon]

You have never explained how conscious control can be implemented within a series of cause and effect events in which every event is entirely defined by unavoidable reaction to previous events.

Because conscious control isn't independent of precursors and personal traits, some of which you aren't consciously aware of - you've been told this countless times.

Neither have you explained how I can be personally accused of deliberate lies or miss representation or deliberate acts of ignoring within the same scenario of unavoidable chains of reaction.  How could I have possibly done anything different?

You keep repeating the same flawed reasoning, but change the conditions that influence your thinking and perhaps the outcome may be different: for example, if you drop your particular (and bespoke) brand of religious 'soul' bollocks perhaps your thinking would be less compromised than is currently the case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have never explained how conscious control can be implemented within a series of cause and effect events in which every event is entirely defined by unavoidable reaction to previous events.

“Conscious” control is an extremely useful, everyday understanding of what’s going on that allows us to interact meaningfully, organise groups and societies, have consistent legal systems etc. At that level of abstraction it’s all good and ”free” will makes sense. At a deeper level though it’s essentially a fiction for explanatory purposes for the reasons that keep being explained to you - if you break the chain of cause and effect then you’d have to introduce randomness, which would lead to chaotic results. Just introducing a magic hobgoblin into the mix that you call “soul” about which you have precisely zero information to elide your experience into its own explanation is epistemically worthless.       

Neither have you explained how I can be personally accused of deliberate lies or miss representation or deliberate acts of ignoring within the same scenario of unavoidable chains of reaction.  How could I have possibly done anything different?

Yes he has and, at a more profound level of understanding than the everyday, functional one, “you” couldn’t have acted differently.

[Stranger]

You have never explained how conscious control can be implemented within a series of cause and effect events in which every event is entirely defined by unavoidable reaction to previous events.

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy (basic mistake in logic). Remember, it's you who have made the claim that it's impossible and yet you still haven't even tried to logically justify any sort of connection at all between the role of consciousness and whether minds are deterministic systems or not.

Neither have you explained how I can be personally accused of deliberate lies or miss representation or deliberate acts of ignoring within the same scenario of unavoidable chains of reaction.  How could I have possibly done anything different?

You have yet to explain how a self-contradictory, impossible, unimaginable ability to have done differently (without randomness) would make you any more (or less) responsible.

You are the person you are, you have the views you do, you're as (dis)honest as you are, and you got to be that way because of reasons (nature, nurture, and experience). You are being true to yourself, regardless. You are also as open (or not) to reasoning as you are. I can try to persuade you and I may or may not succeed. There is nothing about determinism that changes any of that.

You (the person you have become because of your nature and subsequent experience) are entirely free to go on doing your impression of a broken record, or to try a new tactic, like actually thinking about it for a change. You can do whichever you want to do. Determinism is not fatalism.

[Stranger]

“Conscious” control is an extremely useful, everyday understanding of what’s going on...

The thing is, it simply doesn't matter, logically speaking, what role the concious mind plays in decision making. It could be entirely in control, just an epiphenomenon, or anything in between. The logic of determinism versus randomness would still apply.