Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NTtS,

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.

Yes I agree, but I said this in the context of replying to AB’s endless repetition of the same “how can I be to blame if it’s all cause and effect?” witlessness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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?

But that isn't the correct way of putting it . It leaves out a range of different levels of complexity preferring the 'basic unit as it were. Almost pure reductionism leading to ascribing consciousness to the cellular level. He used those words Hillside and you have defended him. It is merely one step up from the reductionist favourite all we are is chemical reactions. It's intellectual sloppiness which ignores organisation in favour of substrate. That is why these 'irrelevences as you call them, are  anything but in the question of expressing a real understanding of emergence.   
 
So what you say is more by way of Butt than Rebuttal.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But that isn't the correct way of putting it . It leaves out a range of different levels of complexity preferring the 'basic unit as it were. Almost pure reductionism leading to ascribing consciousness to the cellular level. He used those words Hillside and you have defended him. It is merely one step up from the reductionist favourite all we are is chemical reactions. It's intellectual sloppiness which ignores organisation in favour of substrate. That is why these 'irrelevences as you call them, are  anything but in the question of expressing a real understanding of emergence.   
 
So what you say is more by way of Butt than Rebuttal.

You seem to be using some sort of random word generator here. I have no idea what you’re trying to say, and nor it seems have you. Emergence is simply the phenomenon that occurs when an entity has properties its parts do not have on their own and which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole. That’s it. Nothing more. Whether the emergent entity is the patterns of flocking birds, termite mounds or life itself makes no difference to the basic principle.

Got it now?

Oh, and the rebuttals you’ve had concern the various screw up you’ve made and then run away from once they’re explained to you.     
 

[Alan Burns]

The logic of determinism versus randomness would still apply.

You consistently fail to acknowledge that there is a third option which enables the freedom we all enjoy.

God's gift of free will.

[Stranger]

You consistently fail to acknowledge that there is a third option which enables the freedom we all enjoy.

God's gift of free will.

As I've argued in some detail (#40759), as have others, no there is not. It's even in the definition of a deterministic system.

You have never faced up to this or made any serious attempt to refute it (meaningless gibberish about "ever present" states are not serious, they are just comical gibberish).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You consistently fail to acknowledge that there is a third option which enables the freedom we all enjoy.

God's gift of free will.

That’s only an option in the sense that the Tooth Fairy is an option for removing teeth from under pillows. If you expect this option to be taken seriously though then you need to find some arguments to justify it that aren’t plainly wrong.

In the meantime though the arguments you’ve been given here (many times) are the only options on the table. Why not try at least to address them therefore?       

[Stranger]

God's gift of free will.

You have also given nothing at all in the way of objective evidence or sound reasoning that even hints at the suggestion of the idea that some god might actually exist to do this, even if it weren't logically impossible.

[Stranger]

That’s only an option in the sense that the Tooth Fairy is an option for removing teeth from under pillows.

It's not even that good. At least the tooth fairy taking teeth and replacing them with coins isn't self-contradictory.

[torridon]

Cells are not conscious.

Correct.  Consciousness emerges, ultimately, from interaction between cells.  Likewise, an ant is not very bright, but an ant colony can make smart choices.

[torridon]

You consistently fail to acknowledge that there is a third option which enables the freedom we all enjoy.

God's gift of free will.

No evidence for that though.  No evidence for God either, so pretty much a non-starter. How would the option to make choices for no reason benefit anybody anyway; it would be a recipe for chaos.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Correct.  Consciousness emerges, ultimately, from interaction between cells.  Likewise, an ant is not very bright, but an ant colony can make smart choices.

You are omitting the role of tissue and brain structure and organisation from which Consciousness emerges. I would imagine your choice of words to be down to your reductionist tendencies.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are omitting the role of tissue and brain structure and organisation from which Consciousness emerges.

Which is simply the next level(s) up in terms of living structures - cellular/tissue/organ.

But the key thing that provides most tissues and organs with their function is the function and interaction of cellular components.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are omitting the role of tissue and brain structure and organisation from which Consciousness emerges. I would imagine your choice of words to be down to your reductionist tendencies.

He did no such thing. What he explained to you (as you struggle to comprehend it) is what emergence is. How it works on the other hand is a different subject. There’s no reductionism in a “what” rather than a “how”. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That’s only an option in the sense that the Tooth Fairy is an option for removing teeth from under pillows. If you expect this option to be taken seriously though then you need to find some arguments to justify it that aren’t plainly wrong.

In the meantime though the arguments you’ve been given here (many times) are the only options on the table. Why not try at least to address them therefore?     

It is the only option which allows us to choose our own destiny in life, rather than trying to convince yourself that you could not possibly choose anything other than the roller coaster driven by past events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is the only option which allows us to choose our own destiny in life, rather than trying to convince yourself that you could not possibly choose anything other than the roller coaster driven by past events.

The argumentum ad consequentiam is invalid reasoning. You should know this by now.

And in an case, you seem to prefer a comforting fiction to a discomforting truth.

[Stranger]

It is the only option which allows us to choose our own destiny in life...

Except that it doesn't because it's logically impossible nonsense. The only way in which we can choose our own destiny in life is if we do as we want to at the time, and that is what determinism allows and impossible nonsensical gibberish wouldn't.

...rather than trying to convince yourself that you could not possibly choose anything other than the roller coaster driven by past events.

Which is (yet again) a total misrepresentation. Being on a "roller coaster" would imply that we are being forced down some route regardless of what we want, which isn't the case at all.

Are you just not understanding this, or is all this misrepresentation what you actually want to achieve. i.e. do you want to be dishonest about it?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The argumentum ad consequentiam is invalid reasoning. You should know this by now.

And in an case, you seem to prefer a comforting fiction to a discomforting truth.

In your narrow perspective of life based on unavoidable reactions, any preferences I have would be entirely defined by reactions past events over which I have no choice.

However by accepting the reality of my own freedom to choose, I can take full responsibility for what I do with my precious time here on this earth.

[Alan Burns]

Which is (yet again) a total misrepresentation. Being on a "roller coaster" would imply that we are being forced down some route regardless of what we want, which isn't the case at all.

But if our "wants" are entirely dictated by reactions to past events, our roller coaster of life is still being driven by past events over which we have no choice.

[Alan Burns]

Correct.  Consciousness emerges, ultimately, from interaction between cells.  Likewise, an ant is not very bright, but an ant colony can make smart choices.

There is a stark difference between an ant hill and human conscious awareness.
The functionality of an ant hill is externally observed and its working is fully understood.
Our conscious awareness is an internal experience which cannot be reproduced and is beyond human understanding.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is simply the next level(s) up in terms of living structures - cellular/tissue/organ.

But the key thing that provides most tissues and organs with their function is the function and interaction of cellular components.

If the emergent property is novel and emergent properties are, then it has something about it that is neither found nor described by any level below it. The basic premise of reductionism is that phenomena are explained by lower levels. emergentism and reductionism are not the same. I'm afraid emergentism introduces at least some element of Irreducibility.

When reductionists start talking of emergence one must suspect their meaning to be different from emergentists.

[Stranger]

However by accepting the reality of my own freedom to choose...

The only possible way that that can be a reality is if your choices are entirely because if reasons, and the reasons will come from the past. You can't escape logic by wishful thinking and impossible fantasies.

But if our "wants" are entirely dictated by reactions to past events, our roller coaster of life is still being driven by past events over which we have no choice.

You obviously don't have a choice about your wants. The only reasons that anybody ever does anything is either because they have no choice or they want to do it. As has been pointed out many, many times before (and totally ignored by you just as many times) you cannot choose your wants because that would lead to an infinite regress, you'd have to decide what you wanted to want, then you'd have to decide what you wanted to want to want, and so on...

[ProfessorDavey]

The functionality of an ant hill is externally observed and its working is fully understood.

Firstly, what do you mean by externally observed - we aren't ants so we are external observers to the functionality of an ant hill. But although we are humans when we study the functionality of the human brain we also act as external observers. Also the functionality of an ant hill isn't fully understood - what makes you think it is. Elements of the complexity of the interactive behaviour of the ants remains poorly described and understood.

Our conscious awareness is an internal experience which cannot be reproduced and is beyond human understanding.

I disagree - currently we don't understand how our neuronal physiology and complexity leads to what we describe as conscious awareness but that doesn't mean it is beyond human understanding, nor beyond replication. We are a long way from full understanding (although massively further on than we were say 50 years ago) and further still from being able to replicate this complexity. But that doesn't mean it is beyond understanding nor beyond replication.

[ProfessorDavey]

If the emergent property is novel and emergent properties are, then it has something about it that is neither found nor described by any level below it.

Actually in many cases the issue is merely about complexity and scale. Single cells have most of the basic functions of larger physiological units (e.g. tissues, organs etc) - e.g. energy metabolism, excitation properties, structural features, transport processes, ability to replicate, features associated with motility etc etc. When cells come together to form tissues and beyond you add complexity as you can create networks, but also you permit scale. A single cell is about 50 times smaller than one millimetre - that isn't going to hack it to generate the functionality of a 1.8 metre person. You are going to need lots of cells, which is indeed what you have.

But I think you need to define what you mean by emergent and place it in the context of animal physiology. Once you've done that then I can address whether the property you describe is truly emergent or merely replicated at tissue/organ level with greater complexity and scale.

[torridon]

But if our "wants" are entirely dictated by reactions to past events, our roller coaster of life is still being driven by past events over which we have no choice.

And how exactly would any alternative work ? What would it even mean to say that you don't want the wants that you have and wanted to have different wants ? Can you not see, this free will idea is stir crazy incomprehensible meaningless bonkers nonsense ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually in many cases the issue is merely about complexity and scale. Single cells have most of the basic functions of larger physiological units (e.g. tissues, organs etc) - e.g. energy metabolism, excitation properties, structural features, transport processes, ability to replicate, features associated with motility etc etc. When cells come together to form tissues and beyond you add complexity as you can create networks, but also you permit scale. A single cell is about 50 times smaller than one millimetre - that isn't going to hack it to generate the functionality of a 1.8 metre person. You are going to need lots of cells, which is indeed what you have.

But I think you need to define what you mean by emergent and place it in the context of animal physiology. Once you've done that then I can address whether the property you describe is truly emergent or merely replicated at tissue/organ level with greater complexity and scale.

I have been critical when people have suggested that Consciousness is the sum total of a great amount of intelligence. I don't think that can be described as emergent or even the solution to consciousness since it's focus is on intelligence rather than consciousness. Which is a reductionist strategy.