Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

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.

Just out of interest, who has made the specific suggestion that "Consciousness is the sum total of a great amount of intelligence", and could you provide a citation please.

[Alan Burns]

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

Reasons exist in my present state of conscious awareness.
These reasons do not dictate what I do, think or say.  I consciously choose how, when and where to act upon them - or to ignore them.
And where does this wishful thinking emanate from?

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...

I want many things, but I have the conscious freedom to choose how to fulfil those wants.

[Stranger]

Reasons exist in my present state of conscious awareness.

Just repeating meaningless gibberish, like some mindless automaton, will not make it make sense. Why can't you at least grasp that? The phrase "present state of conscious awareness" is meaningless bullshit.

These reasons do not dictate what I do, think or say.  I consciously choose how, when and where to act upon them - or to ignore them.

And, for about the ten thousandth time, how you make your ("conscious") choice is what we're talking about. It's that choice that is either entirely for reasons or not entirely for reasons, which would mean part of it was for no reason, which means random.

You do realise that just ignoring the answers you get, and repeating the same things over and over again, just makes you look dim, don't you?

I want many things, but I have the conscious freedom to choose how to fulfil those wants.

And if you choose to not fulfil a want, it will be because you want to (i.e., you want something else more) and you still can't choose your wants without getting into an infinite regress.

And yet again: consciousness is a totally separate issue to your nonsense version of freedom, the two are logically entirely different and independent questions.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Not really an answer to my request.

I asked that you define what you mean by an emergent property and also give an example in the context of animal (e.g. human) physiology. Once you've done that I might be able to give my view from the perspective of a researcher whose work involves studying human physiology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really an answer to my request.

I asked that you define what you mean by an emergent property and also give an example in the context of animal (e.g. human) physiology. Once you've done that I might be able to give my view from the perspective of a researcher whose work involves studying human physiology.

I'm tempted to advise you to go and ask one of your colleagues, who is more au fait with the concept of emergence than yourself and to comment that I suspect you are trying to arrange a ''home fixture'' in order to humiliate me and establish your superiority in standard Atheist academic way. However working, as I sense you do in a reductionist materialist context, The concept of emergence may alternatively have passed you unnoticed.

The obvious example would be intelligence where although kidneys function, that is not what we mean by intelligence which resides in a comparatively sized brain but also in a different form in cephalopods. So intelligence ''emerges'' as a novel feature from various structures without being found in them.

There is an article in wikipedia on Emergence to get you up to speed.

[ProfessorDavey]

The obvious example would be intelligence where although kidneys function, that is not what we mean by intelligence which resides in a comparatively sized brain but also in a different form in cephalopods. So intelligence ''emerges'' as a novel feature from various structures without being found in them.

But you can argue exactly the same for the kidneys - the overall function of the kidneys requires a combination of structures, cells, tissue etc, with that overall function not replicated in the same manner within those individual structures. So for example the key kidney functions of filtration, secretion and reabsorption require the entire structure.

But I don't think we can compare that with intilligence, which isn't really a physiological function at all, but a name we give to a particularly advanced levels of neurophysiology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you can argue exactly the same for the kidneys - the overall function of the kidneys requires a combination of structures, cells, tissue etc, with that overall function not replicated in the same manner within those individual structures. So for example the key kidney functions of filtration, secretion and reabsorption require the entire structure.

But I don't think we can compare that with intilligence, which isn't really a physiological function at all, but a name we give to a particularly advanced levels of neurophysiology.

But intelligence isn't necessarily restricted to neurophysiology. It can emerge from machine structures.

[Alan Burns]

And how exactly would any alternative work ?

The alternative would stem from the nature of your present state of conscious awareness and your ability to invoke conscious choices rather than just being aware of your inevitable reactions to past events.  How it works - that is God's domain.  I can sympathise with those who do not have faith, for without God's miraculous gift there would be no alternative - you would have no option but to react in exactly the same way under the same circumstances, just like a robot.

[Gordon]

The alternative would stem from the nature of your present state of conscious awareness and your ability to invoke conscious choices rather than just being aware of your inevitable reactions to past events.  How it works - that is God's domain.  I can sympathise with those who do not have faith, for without God's miraculous gift there would be no alternative - you would have no option but to react in exactly the same way under the same circumstances.

I'm happy that I seem to react the same way under the same circumstances, since if a repeat of exactly the same circumstances produced different reactions then I'd be worried.
 

[Alan Burns]

I'm happy that I seem to react the same way under the same circumstances, since if a repeat of exactly the same circumstances produced different reactions then I'd be worried.

Why would you be worried?
It would demonstrate that you have the freedom to choose what you want to do - rather than let nature choose it for you.

[Gordon]

Why would you be worried?
It would demonstrate that you have the freedom to choose what you want to do - rather than let nature choose it for you.

Because if exactly the same circumstances, including my internal mental state, were repeated but there was a different outcome that would imply an element of randomness that could become chaotic - and that situation would be worrying.

[torridon]

Why would you be worried?
It would demonstrate that you have the freedom to choose what you want to do - rather than let nature choose it for you.

We always do choose whatever it is that we want to do; and we cannot be free of that paradigm. What we cannot do, is choose which wants to have in the first place.  This makes no sense.  Isn't that penny ever going to drop Alan ?

[torridon]

The alternative would stem from the nature of your present state of conscious awareness and your ability to invoke conscious choices rather than just being aware of your inevitable reactions to past events.  How it works - that is God's domain.  I can sympathise with those who do not have faith, for without God's miraculous gift there would be no alternative - you would have no option but to react in exactly the same way under the same circumstances, just like a robot.

The idea that conscious awareness is some sort of magical alter-reality within which we can indeed want things that we don't want is 1) without evidence, and 2) logically incomprehensible. Why on Earth you imagine people would want to be able to want things they don't want is beyond me, you're making no sense

[Stranger]

The alternative would stem from the nature of your present state of conscious awareness and your ability to invoke conscious choices rather than just being aware of your inevitable reactions to past events.  How it works - that is God's domain.

The "present state of conscious awareness" is still utterly meaningless bullshit (you might as well say "magic zigpipom"), and yet again, whatever role consciousness plays is totally irrelevant to the impossibility of your notion of freedom.

Whether we "invoke conscious choices" is irrelevant, and "just being aware of your inevitable reactions to past events" is not the alternative being suggested. You keep on using this kind of straw man fallacy. It's like you can't even face up to the real arguments against you.

It would demonstrate that you have the freedom to choose what you want to do - rather than let nature choose it for you.

Nonsense. We do choose to do what we want to do (what we do is determined by what we want), and it still makes no sense at all to say that we can choose which thing we want most, because we'd then have to choose that somehow, and we'd be off into an infinite regress.

What you're describing is, quite literally, meaningless gibberish, it makes no sense, it's not even possible to imagine what it would be like because it's as impossible and contradictory as a square circle.

[Alan Burns]

Because if exactly the same circumstances, including my internal mental state, were repeated but there was a different outcome that would imply an element of randomness that could become chaotic - and that situation would be worrying.

You are confusing randomness with freedom

[Gordon]

You are confusing randomness with freedom

Not really, since I think that 'freedom', as you envisage it, is an illusion.

[Alan Burns]

What you're describing is, quite literally, meaningless gibberish, it makes no sense, it's not even possible to imagine what it would be like because it's as impossible and contradictory as a square circle.

Your ability to imagine anything illustrates an example your conscious freedom which could not be defined by the results of endless chains of past cause and effect beyond your conscious control.

[Stranger]

You are confusing randomness with freedom

No, that's your problem. To the extent all the reasons that could possibly affect a choice, do not determine it, some part of it must be for no reason (random), so once you 'free' yourself from determinism, you've introduced randomness.

And, no you can't generate a reason in magic zigpipom ("present state of conscious awareness"), nor can 'you' consider all the reasons and then make a choice because it is that very consideration and choice that we're talking about.

[Stranger]

You ability to imagine anything illustrates an example your conscious freedom which could not be defined by the results of endless chains of past cause and effect beyond your conscious control.

Straw man and argument by assertion fallacies.

You do realise if you spent even half the time you've wasted here, just mindlessly repeating the same garbage, actually studying logic and critical thinking, you'd be able to avoid falling into fallacy after fallacy. You might even be able to make an argument worthy of the name. Why would you not do that? What are you afraid of?

[Alan Burns]

Straw man and argument by assertion fallacies.

You do realise if you spent even half the time you've wasted here, just mindlessly repeating the same garbage, actually studying logic and critical thinking, you'd be able to avoid falling into fallacy after fallacy. You might even be able to make an argument worthy of the name. Why would you not do that? What are you afraid of?

I am simply arguing that the belief that at every moment in our lives, we could not possibly have chosen to do anything or thought anything differently may well fit in with a materialist view of our existence, but it certainly does not fit in with the reality of the conscious freedom we all enjoy, and without which this forum would not exist.  Every post is an illustration of the conscious freedom used to think up the content and to choose to share our thoughts with others.  This freedom may well be beyond human understanding, but our lack of understanding does not mean that it does not exist.

[Stranger]

I am simply arguing that the belief that at every moment in our lives, we could not possibly have chosen to do anything or thought anything differently may well fit in with a materialist view of our existence...

There you go with a straw man fallacy again. It's just logic that rules out your impossible version of freedom. It's got nothing to do with materialism.

...but it certainly does not fit in with the reality of the conscious freedom we all enjoy...

Argument by assertion again. And I do not 'enjoy' the 'reality' of your impossible version of 'freedom'. I can't even imagine it.

...and without which this forum would not exist.  Every post is an illustration of the conscious freedom used to think up the content and to choose to share our thoughts with others.

Straw man and argument by assertion. Yet again "conscious freedom" is irrelevant to the logic of determinism. Nobody is disputing the human ability to think things through and share our thought.

And you totally ignored my point. Why are you wasting your time mindlessly repeating the same script you've tried countless times before, when you could actually be using your time learning how to do a better job of making arguments?

[Alan Burns]

There you go with a straw man fallacy again. It's just logic that rules out your impossible version of freedom. It's got nothing to do with materialism.

The logic you keep quoting is entirely based upon the time related cause and effect scenario perceived in the material behaviour of our observable universe.

You consistently fail to acknowledge the possibility, or probability, of our conscious selves being able to deliberately generate a causal event which is not an inevitable reaction to past events.

The root of where we differ is in the concept of conscious awareness.  You are able to dismiss it as irrelevant to the logic because I presume that you believe that your conscious awareness is itself just a reaction to past events.  This would be the materialist view because they would presume our awareness to be generated by nothing but material reactions.  My view is that the entities of awareness which comprise you and me are not material reactions but an entity which is aware of material reactions.  An entity which can perceive the time dimension of our material universe, but which is not tied to this time dimension in the same way as material reactions.  An entity which allows us to choose thoughts, words and actions which are not inevitable reactions to past events.

[Stranger]

The logic you keep quoting is entirely based upon the time related cause and effect scenario perceived in the material behaviour of our observable universe.

For fuck's sake Alan, do we really have to go through every part of your silly script all over again? Have you really got nothing new to say? The logic is based only on the fact that our minds are, necessarily, things that vary with time.

You consistently fail to acknowledge the possibility, or probability, of our conscious selves being able to deliberately generate a causal event which is not an inevitable reaction to past events.

No I don't. I point out that if we generate an event that isn't entirely due to its antecedents, then, to the exist it isn't, it is for no reason and therefore random.

The root of where we differ is in the concept of conscious awareness.  You are able to dismiss it as irrelevant to the logic because I presume that you believe that your conscious awareness is itself just a reaction to past events.

If it isn't, then it must involve randomness, for the same reason given above.

This would be the materialist view because they would presume our awareness to be generated by nothing but material reactions.

No it isn't. Please stop lying. I am not arguing that a non-material soul, that is involved in decisions, is impossible, just that your version of 'freedom' is impossible.

My view is that the entities of awareness which comprise you and me are not material reactions but an entity which is aware of material reactions.  An entity which can perceive the time dimension of our material universe, but which is not tied to this time dimension in the same way as material reactions.  An entity which allows us to choose thoughts, words and actions which are not inevitable reactions to past events.

I know that's your view, you've repeated it about ten thousand times, and my answer is the same as before. It doesn't matter if it's tied to 'this' time dimension, if it doesn't change with some time dimension it literally can't do anything.

And you still haven't answered why you're wasting your time repeating these terrible attempts at arguments, that have been comprehensibly demolished and shown to be ridden with fallacies endless times here before, instead of putting some effort into learning how to construct a logical argument without falling into fallacies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just out of interest, as you're determined to ignore rather than address the arguments that falsify you does this mot strike you as dishonest behaviour? Over and over again people here take the trouble to set out for you the reasoning that shows you to be wrong, and in response over and over again you just repeat exactly the same unqualified assertions, fallacies, contradictions etc that have been shown to be wrong.

Would it not be honest at least if just once you were to try to engage with the arguments themselves rather than treat them as if nothing had been said?

Is a belief in "god" that relies so fundamentally on dishonesty really worth having?     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just out of interest, as you're determined to ignore rather than address the arguments that falsify you does this mot strike you as dishonest behaviour? Over and over again people here take the trouble to set out for you the reasoning that shows you to be wrong, and in response over and over again you just repeat exactly the same unqualified assertions, fallacies, contradictions etc that have been shown to be wrong.

Would it not be honest at least if just once you were to try to engage with the arguments themselves rather than treat them as if nothing had been said?

Is a belief in "god" that relies so fundamentally on dishonesty really worth having?     

You seem to be implying that me being a witness to God and to our spiritual nature and our God given freedom is being dishonest
Whenever I engage with the arguments, the responses I get infer that I could not possibly have chosen to respond in any other way - I rest my case.