Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

No I get the importance of the lower organisational levels, but part of the definition of emergent properties is that they are not demonstrated in those lower levels.

For crying out loud Vlad - the properties of selective permeability and compartmentalisation are not demonstrated in the lower level of the individual molecules. Those properties are clearly emergent, not demonstrated at lower levels.

Individual molecules cannot act like the membranes they make up.

Therefore the higher level properties are emergent and not demonstrated at the lower individual molecular level.

That should be obvious.

Indeed it is, or at least it is to me - which is why those properties of selective permeability and compartmentalisation are emergent and not not demonstrated at the lower individual molecular level.

What I am saying is when the membrane goes, the components of it all go together.

What on earth do you mean by 'when the membrane goes' - you are just spouting non-sense.

You are merely describing what individual components do....and that's it, that is like using the term emergence shamanically.

Non-sense I am explaining that when phospholipids self assembly they demonstrate properties that are not manifested at the level of the individual molecule. That is, without doubt an emergent property.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My views are not just based on the way my mind feels about conscious control.  It is what can be achieved by conscious control - achievements which would not be possible without conscious control.   You may choose to label this as personal incredulity, but it is based on the simple fact that our ability to control and guide our thoughts is essential in order to reach verifiable conclusions

You seem to struggle with the meaning of the word “why”. What I said was: “If you know that you should be able to justify why you know it rather than just believe it.”

In reply you’ve said, “My views are not just based on the way my mind feels about conscious control” and “…it is based on the simple fact that our ability to control and guide our thoughts is essential…”, which are just restatements of your belief. There’s no explanatory “why” there. So again: WHY do you think these unqualified assertions are true?
 

How can you compare Thor to the verifiable capability of the human mind to exert conscious control?

And it seems you don’t understand “analogy” either. If I said, “looking for a good man is like looking for a needle in a haystack” would you reply, “How can you compare a human being to a needle?”? Why not?

Gee whizz. An analogy isn’t a comparison of the different objects of the two examples – rather it’s a comparison of the same underlying argument about them. Good men are difficult to locate; needles in haystacks are also difficult to locate. Absence of a material explanation for thunder didn’t justify the claim “Thor”; absence of a material explanation for consciousness also doesn’t justify the claim “soul”.

This isn’t difficult stuff Alan, really it isn’t. 
 

Your thinking here is completely circular – your premise (“conscious control”) and your conclusion (also “conscious control”) are the same thing. It goes like this:

1. Conscious control is real.

2. Materialism can’t explain how conscious control works.

3. Therefore there is more to reality than materialism   
FIFY

Can you really not see the utter dimiwittedness of what you did here? Really though?

The only way this version could be valid would be if you were already certain that materialism had already explained every possible material thing in the universe, such that only then could its “don’t knows” justify a different category of answer. No-one suggests that materialism has done that though. That’s why there are countless researchers and scientists toiling away to try to find answers to many of the vast numbers of “don’t knows” we know about already.   

You really need to give your head a wobble here Alan. Really.

But without the conscious control you use to direct your thoughts, you would be unable to conceive of any logical problems.

Stop it now. Seriously, just stop it now. How many freaking times dos this stupidity have to be falsified for you? All that would be necessary to “conceive of any logical problems” would be a functioning brain of such complexity that consciousness had spontaneously arisen from it as an emergent property. That that emergent property would feel as though “you” have “control of your thoughts” is just the way you would expect it to seem as a lived experience. As soon as you try to explain the "separate I" hypothesis though your run slap bang into insurmountable logical problems, as have been set out for you countless times here already. Relying on a magic soul to get you off that hook is infantile.       

I do not imagine conscious control - I use it.

And you know that reason- and evidence-denying statement to be true how? (Try to remember here that just repeating it isn’t a justification for it.)

[torridon]

None of this explains how thought patterns can be guided to reach verifiable conclusions.  If it is not consciously driven control, what does the guiding and what verifies the conclusion?

Our underlying hopes and fears are what drives us.  If I solve a problem, reach a conclusion, it is because I have a desire to do so.  Those thought processes are driven by our desires.  Our hopes and fears are mostly subconscious, this goes all the way back to Freud; and if they start to manifest in conscious mind it is because the emotional charge attached to then has risen; what is in conscious mind is whatever is most important in the moment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For crying out loud Vlad - the properties of selective permeability and compartmentalisation are not demonstrated in the lower level of the individual molecules. Those properties are clearly emergent, not demonstrated at lower levels.
Therefore the higher level properties are emergent and not demonstrated at the lower individual molecular level.
Indeed it is, or at least it is to me - which is why those properties of selective permeability and compartmentalisation are emergent and not not demonstrated at the lower individual molecular level.
What on earth do you mean by 'when the membrane goes' - you are just spouting non-sense.
Non-sense I am explaining that when phospholipids self assembly they demonstrate properties that are not manifested at the level of the individual molecule. That is, without doubt an emergent property.

What I mean by when the membrane goes etc. Is this.
Membranes and there functions are emergent so when a membrane functions the component molecules are subordinate to the emergent properties. At the very least then there spatial positions are then dependent on that function. Similarly any functioning emergent structure changes the status of it's components.

Is it notional then that consciousness can affect things at a lower organisational level. I would say yes.
Reductionism in my view imbues strange prophetic powers into
Particles so your idea of the lower levels 'driving' the function of the emergent is a bit woo.

[Alan Burns]

I do not imagine conscious control - I use it.

And you know that reason- and evidence-denying statement to be true how? (Try to remember here that just repeating it isn’t a justification for it.)

I could not have made this statement without conscious control.
I could not keep repeating my justifications without conscious control.
You could not keep denying that we have conscious control without conscious control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I could not have made this statement without conscious control.

Because?

I could not keep repeating my justifications without conscious control.

Because?

You could not keep denying that we have conscious control without conscious control.

Because?

You really need to sort out the difference between a "what" and a "why" here Alan.

[ProfessorDavey]

What I mean by when the membrane goes etc. Is this.

This had better be good.

Membranes and there functions are emergent so when a membrane functions the component molecules are subordinate to the emergent properties.

No they aren't - in what way is the word subordinate relevant here - the membrane isn't subordinate to the phospholipid molecules - nor are the phospholipid molecules subordinate to the membrane. The individual molecules retain their structure and properties, but those properties will cause them to self assemble generating a membrane and its emergent properties. They don't stop being individual molecules, they are just organised in a different manner.

At the very least then there spatial positions are then dependent on that function.

Non-sense you have it completely the wrong way around. The function of the membrane is dependent on that spatial positioning.

Similarly any functioning emergent structure changes the status of it's components.

No it doesn't - the individual molecules are still that - individual molecules. They have no change in their fundamental structure or properties. The membrane's emergent properties are driven by the self assembly and that, of itself, is driven by fundamental energetics of chemistry/physics.

Is it notional then that consciousness can affect things at a lower organisational level. I would say yes.

Of you are off into cloud cuckoo land now Vlad. The individual phospholipid molecules aren't conscious, nor are the self-assembled membrane state. Nor, if we get that far is a cell. Consciousness resides within much more complex neurological systems, which interestingly are, largely governed by another emergent property of the membrane, namely charge differences across that membrane.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This had better be good.
No they aren't - in what way is the word subordinate relevant here - the membrane isn't subordinate to the phospholipid molecules - nor are the phospholipid molecules subordinate to the membrane. The individual molecules retain their structure and properties, but those properties will cause them to self assemble generating a membrane and its emergent properties. They don't stop being individual molecules, they are just organised in a different manner.
Non-sense you have it completely the wrong way around. The function of the membrane is dependent on that spatial positioning.
No it doesn't - the individual molecules are still that - individual molecules. They have no change in their fundamental structure or properties. The membrane's emergent properties are driven by the self assembly and that, of itself, is driven by fundamental energetics of chemistry/physics.
Of you are off into cloud cuckoo land now Vlad. The individual phospholipid molecules aren't conscious, nor are the self-assembled membrane state. Nor, if we get that far is a cell. Consciousness resides within much more complex neurological systems, which interestingly are, largely governed by another emergent property of the membrane, namely charge differences across that membrane.

No the molecules aren't changed.That is something you are, wrongly accusing me of suggesting... but their spatial positioning is changed and this never crosses the mind of the reductionist.

The spatial position of the molecules becomes dictated by the membrane and it's function, both emergent functions.

I did make it clear that the components do not possess the property.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Because?

Because?

Because?

Because I need conscious control to make these statements.
This answer should be obvious.
Do you honestly believe that all your posts can emanate from subconscious brain activity beyond conscious control?
Is so, can this act of belief just emerge into your conscious awareness from physical reactions with no conscious contemplation needed?
If these answers are both "yes" I have to conclude that I am conversing with a biological robot with no will of its own.

[ProfessorDavey]

The spatial position of the molecules becomes dictated by the membrane and it's function, both emergent functions.

No it doesn't - the spatial position is dictated by the fundamental energetics chemistry/physics of the individual molecules - it isn't dictated by the membrane, still less by the membrane's function. The membrane function is dictated by the fundamental energetics chemistry/physics of the individual molecules and when that results in self assembly emergent properties, err, emerge.

[Gordon]

If these answers are both "yes" I have to conclude that I am conversing with a biological robot with no will of its own.

Even allowing for a bit of over-simplification in what you say - you're getting warmer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because I need conscious control to make these statements.

Or instead you need just an apparent experience of “conscious control” that better aligns with the reasoning and evidence to hand.

This answer should be obvious.

It is “obvious” and, provided you don’t think about it, that’s good enough for day-to-day purposes too. Trouble is though, some people do think about it and, as with so much else that seems “obvious”, when we do think about it we find it’s wrong. Flat wrong. Necessarily wrong in fact because of the manifold and intractable contradictions that “obvious” gives you.   

Do you honestly believe that all your posts can emanate from subconscious brain activity beyond conscious control?

Yes. More to the point though, why don’t you?

Is so, can this act of belief just emerge into your conscious awareness from physical reactions with no conscious contemplation needed?

“Conscious contemplation” does occur, but “conscious contemplation” is itself just the process of thinking that feels as though we have agency. So yes.

If these answers are both "yes" I have to conclude that I am conversing with a biological robot with no will of its own.

You’re getting warmer – in some sense we are “biological robots”, albeit fantastically complicated ones – but of course I have a “will of my own”, at least in the sense that, say, if I want to finish typing this sentence then no-one can stop me. What I can’t have though is the “free” will that you imagine it to be as a sort of little hobgoblin pulling my strings apparently with no thought processes of its own (unless it too has a hobgoblin of it own, and so on forever as an infinite regress).

Anyway, do you have answer to the question about why you think as you do other than “it’s obvious?”

(And do you now understand how analogies work by the way?)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't - the spatial position is dictated by the fundamental energetics chemistry/physics of the individual molecules - it isn't dictated by the membrane, still less by the membrane's function. The membrane function is dictated by the fundamental energetics chemistry/physics of the individual molecules and when that results in self assembly emergent properties, err, emerge.

Wrong the fundamental particles do not have the properties of the emergent property and while it is possible to distort a membrane, the individual components have to act as a group in concert.
Also many biological membranes are formed by preformed structures in cells so the molecules have not self organised.

[torridon]

Because I need conscious control to make these statements.
This answer should be obvious.
Do you honestly believe that all your posts can emanate from subconscious brain activity beyond conscious control?
Is so, can this act of belief just emerge into your conscious awareness from physical reactions with no conscious contemplation needed?
If these answers are both "yes" I have to conclude that I am conversing with a biological robot with no will of its own.

I can consciously choose to scratch my nose now because I am conscious. If I was in a coma this would not be possible. Likewise my labrador can consciously choose to wag his tail given he is awake and alert. If he was in a coma this would not be possible. So, in an everyday sense of the words, what you say is fair.  But you still haven't grasped the subtleties of how mind works, namely, that all conscious experience has non-conscious origins, it derives from non conscious mental processes that we are not aware of. So it is also accurate to say that all our conscious decisions emerge from our subconscious.  You're going to keep tripping into confusion over this until you factor in this insight into how our minds work.

And, yes, each person has a will of their own; this too has origins in the past in terms of their nurture and nature; there is nothing supernatural about this, it is inevitable.

[Alan Burns]

It is “obvious” and, provided you don’t think about it, that’s good enough for day-to-day purposes too. Trouble is though, some people do think about it and, as with so much else that seems “obvious”, when we do think about it we find it’s wrong. Flat wrong. Necessarily wrong in fact because of the manifold and intractable contradictions that “obvious” gives you.   

Your ability to consciously "think about it" is obvious.
Without this consciously driven ability you would never get to a conclusion about these manifold intractable contradictions.

What you are thinking about is a material brain driven entirely by physical reactions, and as such your conclusions are correct.
Your problem is that you fail to realise that in order to think about this, you need a brain driven by you - not by inevitable, unavoidable physically driven reactions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Wrong the fundamental particles

Membranes aren't made of particles

... do not have the properties of the emergent property

True - the emergent properties arise due to higher level organisation and aren't present in the individual molecules - that's what I am saying.

and while it is possible to distort a membrane, the individual components have to act as a group in concert.

True, but I don't see the relevance given that the emergent properties I was discussing were selective permeability and compartmentalisation. There are relations to membrane bending, but I suspect that is rather beyond your pay-grade Vlad.

Also many biological membranes are formed by preformed structures in cells so the molecules have not self organised.

There are certainly active biological processes that adapt, modify, support membrane structures - but the basic membrane structure (a lipid bilayer) which possesses the emergent properties of selective permeability and compartmentalisation does not require those processes. It arises through self assembly driven by the fundamental energetics of the individual molecules, although those molecules of themselves do no possess those emergent properties.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your ability to consciously "think about it" is obvious.
Without this consciously driven ability you would never get to a conclusion about these manifold intractable contradictions.

I’ve explained to you why you’re wrong about this Why have you failed (again) to address the explanation and instead just repeated the same error?

What you are thinking about is a material brain driven entirely by physical reactions, and as such your conclusions are correct.

Your terminology is wrong, but essentially yes. There are good reasons to think that consciousness is an emergent property of vastly complex brains, and no good reasons to think that there needs to be an immaterial little man at the controls instead.   

Your problem is that you fail to realise that in order to think about this, you need a brain driven by you - not by inevitable, unavoidable physically driven reactions.

Except of course the actual problem here is that you cannot justify that reason- and evidence-denying assertion with supporting arguments of any kind, which is why instead you just assert it over and over again.

If you want the claim to be taken seriously then eventually you’re going to have to try at least to find an argument to justify it – and no, “it's obvious” isn’t an argument of any kind. 

[Alan Burns]

Except of course the actual problem here is that you cannot justify that reason- and evidence-denying assertion with supporting arguments of any kind, which is why instead you just assert it over and over again.

And my consciously driven ability to assert this over and over again is the evidence you consciously try to evade.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And my consciously driven ability to assert this over and over again is the evidence you consciously try to evade.

The only evasion here Alan is your unrelenting evasion of the argument that falsifies this assertion. No-one can force you to address that argument of course, but just ignoring it smacks of dishonesty.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The only evasion here Alan is your unrelenting evasion of the argument that falsifies this assertion. No-one can force you to address that argument of course, but just ignoring it smacks of dishonesty.

To consciously ignore also requires the conscious control which you continue to deny exists.
To make any deliberate act of dishonesty also shows evidence of our consciously driven ability to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To consciously ignore also requires the conscious control which you continue to deny exists.
To make any deliberate act of dishonesty also shows evidence of our consciously driven ability to do so.

FFS. No it doesn't. I could tell you why not again, but as you'll never be honest enough to address the argument what would be the point?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Membranes aren't made of particles
True - the emergent properties arise due to higher level organisation and aren't present in the individual molecules - that's what I am saying.
True, but I don't see the relevance given that the emergent properties I was discussing were selective permeability and compartmentalisation. There are relations to membrane bending, but I suspect that is rather beyond your pay-grade Vlad.
There are certainly active biological processes that adapt, modify, support membrane structures - but the basic membrane structure (a lipid bilayer) which possesses the emergent properties of selective permeability and compartmentalisation does not require those processes. It arises through self assembly driven by the fundamental energetics of the individual molecules, although those molecules of themselves do no possess those emergent properties.

I find your dismissal of particles theory in your opening line quite shocking considering your academic bona fides and "paygrade" are the subject of discussion on another thread.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find your dismissal of particles theory in your opening line quite shocking considering your academic bona fides and "paygrade" are the subject of discussion on another thread.

Particle theory applies in completely different contexts. It is used to describe sub-atomic interactions. It isn't really relevant for the discussion of much higher level molecular interaction, such as those that are responsible for the self assembly of phospholipids into membrane structures which then exhibit selective permeability and compartmentalisation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Particle theory applies in completely different contexts. It is used to describe sub-atomic interactions. It isn't really relevant for the discussion of much higher level molecular interaction, such as those that are responsible for the self assembly of phospholipids into membrane structures which then exhibit selective permeability and compartmentalisation.

Molecules are particles Davey.
If we take enzymes those are emergent proteins able to distort proteins. An example of an emergent rearranging the spatial positions of more basic units. Enzymic properties not found in component molecules so no chance of enzymic activity being ‘driven’ there.

[ProfessorDavey]

Molecules are particles Davey.

No they aren't, or at least they aren't in the context of particle theory, which focuses on sub-atomic particles.

If we take enzymes those are emergent proteins able to distort proteins. An example of an emergent rearranging the spatial positions of more basic units. Enzymic properties not found in component molecules so no chance of enzymic activity being ‘driven’ there.

Gobbledegook