Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, but here is the rub - both Godel and Broad seem to have a rather detached relationship to evidence, both seemingly prefer to based their views on un-evidenced presumption. So in the case of Broad, his long-standing presidency of the Society for Psychical Research (there being no evidence for the paranormal of psychic phenomena) suggests he played fast and loose with the importance of evidence. .

Credible evidence? Credible as in believable evidence? which is in the the eye of the believer etc?
From occult-world.com/society-psychical-research-

The SPR’s investigations of Spiritualism, which failed to validate survival after death and exposed many fraudulent mediums, contributed to the decline of interest in physical mediumship in England.

[ProfessorDavey]

Credible evidence? Credible as in believable evidence? which is in the the eye of the believer etc?
From occult-world.com/society-psychical-research-

"... and exposed many fraudulent mediums ..." as opposed to what?!?

Do they spend their time making distinctions between real ghosts and fake ghosts Vlad.

[Alan Burns]

…and then you fell apart again. I’ve explained to you countless times why you’re wrong about this (“our ability to consciously think about it” is exactly how you’d expect the illusion of “free” will agency to feel)

So in the absence of any conscious control of our thought patterns, what is it that has the ability to judge what is true?  And what can be held accountable for such judgements?  Without the ability to contemplate what emerges into our conscious awareness how can anyone make a valid judgement?  Why can't you accept that our ability to contemplate, draw conclusions and make judgements are evidence of conscious control over our thought patterns?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So in the absence of any conscious control of our thought patterns, what is it that has the ability to judge what is true?

You do, but “you” essentially happens under the bonnet without another “you” needing to "control" it.

And what can be held accountable for such judgements?

You. And me. And Fred next door. And anyone else who, for example, can be sent to pokey for breaking the law. Your misunderstanding though is that “you”, “me”, “Fred” therefore exercise “free” will somehow free of prior conditions, whereas in practice that would be chaotic.       

Without the ability to contemplate what emerges into our conscious awareness how can anyone make a valid judgement?

Because “contemplating” as you put it is itself just the experience of thinking that feels like there’s some sort of agency involved that’s independent of mind. Not only is there no need for such an entity though, the speculation also throws up insurmountable logical contradictions (that you routinely ignore).     

Why can't you accept that our ability to contemplate, draw conclusions and make judgements are evidence of conscious control over our thought patterns?

Because it’s plainly nonsense – to have “conscious control over our thought patterns” as you imagine it you have to insert something else with “thought patterns” of its own to do the “controlling”, which in in turn would require inserting something else… etc and so on through infinite regression.

I notice by the way that you just ignored the problem of justifying two categories of assumption being more problematic than justifying one. Why is that?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You do, but “you” essentially happens under the bonnet without another “you” needing to "control" it.

You. And me. And Fred next door. And anyone else who, for example, can be sent to pokey for breaking the law. Your misunderstanding though is that “you”, “me”, “Fred” therefore exercise “free” will somehow free of prior conditions, whereas in practice that would be chaotic.       

Because “contemplating” as you put it is itself just the experience of thinking that feels like there’s some sort of agency involved that’s independent of mind. Not only is there no need for such an entity though, the speculation also throws up insurmountable logical contradictions (that you routinely ignore).     

Because it’s plainly nonsense – to have “conscious control over our thought patterns” as you imagine it you have to insert something else with “thought patterns” of its own to do the “controlling”, which in in turn would require inserting something else… etc and so on through infinite regression.

I notice by the way that you just ignored the problem of justifying two categories of assumption being more problematic than justifying one. Why is that?   

So if all this apparent thought processing happens "under the bonnet" with no need for consciously controlled interaction, what precisely governs the resulting conclusion?  Are you suggesting that we all have some form of automated logic detector and applicator driving our sub conscious activities? [or in Gordon's case, an automated fallacy detector  ]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"... and exposed many fraudulent mediums ..." as opposed to what?!?

Do they spend their time making distinctions between real ghosts and fake ghosts Vlad.

Seems to me if you investigate the afterlife and don't validate post mortem existence or afterlife then that just about raps it up for any mediums or ghosts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I only hope that the Society for Psychical Research had a militant wing that used violence and were charged with striking a happy medium.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So if all this apparent thought processing happens "under the bonnet" with no need for consciously controlled interaction, what precisely governs the resulting conclusion?

What does “governs the resulting conclusion” mean? Are you asking how it is that we validate our conclusions? That would likely be by accessing memory – if we’re contemplating putting our hand in the fire, our memory tells us that’s a bad idea so we don’t do it (by and large). We don’t though at a conscious level think “hand in fire”, “not hand in fire” as these options arise from the subconscious and then select a memory file to tell us which is the better idea – that too happens in the subconscious precisely so the conscious “we” doesn’t have to readdress the same decision every time the competing options occur to us.     

Are you suggesting that we all have some form of automated logic detector and applicator driving our sub conscious activities? [or in Gordon's case, an automated fallacy detector and applicator driving our sub conscious activities? [or in Gordon's case, an automated fallacy detector  ]

If by “some form of automated logic detector” you mean “memory”, then yes.   

[Alan Burns]

Because it’s plainly nonsense – to have “conscious control over our thought patterns” as you imagine it you have to insert something else with “thought patterns” of its own to do the “controlling”, which in in turn would require inserting something else… etc and so on through infinite regression.

No need for infinite regression.
All you need is a conscious entity which is aware of the past - but not controlled by it, with the power to exert conscious control rather than react.
The buck stops with your God given soul.
You are in control of your own destiny.

[ProfessorDavey]

The buck stops with your God given soul.

Which is special pleading or we are back into the world of infinite regress. Thinking complexity arises top down always leads to one of both of these logical challenges.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is special pleading or we are back into the world of infinite regress. Thinking complexity arises top down always leads to one of both of these logical challenges.

Infinite regress is not explanation but infinite deferment of explanation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Infinite regress is not explanation but infinite deferment of explanation.

Absolutely which is my the top-down approach has a problem in that if complexity must arise through the actions of something more complex you end up with infinite regress. Your only way out is special pleading (i.e. are but this particular complex thing doesn't require something more complex for its existence) - but this is illogical unless there is strong evidence to support this assertion. Typically there is no evidence to support the special pleading.

[Sebastian Toe]

All you need is a conscious entity which is aware of the past -

How is it aware of the past?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No need for infinite regression.

Unless you’re going to special plead your way out of the problem (ie, your de facto “it’s magic innit” “soul”) then yes there would be an infinite regression. 
 

All you need is a conscious entity which is aware of the past - but not controlled by it, with the power to exert conscious control rather than react.

Depends what you mean by “not controlled by it” and “the power to exert conscious control” but you seem to be describing minds here. We “control” our actions by, say, choosing to go to Aldi instead of Waitrose because the Aldi veg is a bit cheaper, but that workaday experience of choosing requires no reason- and evidence-denying magic man at the controls.     

The buck stops with your God given soul.

So you assert. What you have to do now though if you want that claim to be taken seriously is (finally) to address the epic logical contradictions it gives you.

Good luck with it though.

You are in control of your own destiny.

Depends what you mean by “you”. At an experiential level that gives us a workaday, colloquial explanatory narrative (“I choose to go to Aldi instead of Waitrose” etc) then yes. As soon as you actually investigate that narrative though it falls apart – and “free” will cannot be “free” at the level you fondly imagine to be, no matter what special pleading you attempt to justify that story.     

Oh, and as you just ignored it again:

A. I saw the Loch Ness Monster this morning.

B. I saw the ghost of the Loch Ness Monster this morning.

Which of A or B would you think to be be the more difficult to validate?

Why?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolutely which is my the top-down approach has a problem in that if complexity must arise through the actions of something more complex you end up with infinite regress. Your only way out is special pleading (i.e. are but this particular complex thing doesn't require something more complex for its existence) - but this is illogical unless there is strong evidence to support this assertion. Typically there is no evidence to support the special pleading.

An infinite regress isn't necessary in a top down hierarchy of complex things. We know that a watchmaker can build a watch and as far as we know the human brain could be the most complex thing in the universe and we know that a watch cannot make anything so we have a top down hierarchy of two levels. Hardly an infinite regression.

Does the universe support infinite complexity? If yes, wouldn't we already be aware of it?

[ProfessorDavey]

An infinite regress isn't necessary in a top down hierarchy of complex things.

It is if you consider that complex things must be the product of more complex things - unless you start special pleading.

We know that a watchmaker can build a watch ...

But how does the watchmaker arise - in the top down infinite regress the watchmaker must be the product of something more complex again and on we go. The alternative (and the evidence based explanation) is that the watchmaker is in fact the product of bottom-up evolution, arising from what we might consider less complex forms. That way we can circumvent the issues of infinite regress and special pleading.

... and as far as we know the human brain could be the most complex thing in the universe ...

Blimey - Sriram levels of anthropocentricity - firstly how do we know there aren't other life forms way more neurological-complex than humans. But also why is the human bring more complex than mycelial network, or a star, or a tree - to think in that manner shows you cannot see beyond your human-like bias for complexity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is if you consider that complex things must be the product of more complex things - unless you start special pleading.
But how does the watchmaker arise - in the top down infinite regress the watchmaker must be the product of something more complex again and on we go. The alternative (and the evidence based explanation) is that the watchmaker is in fact the product of bottom-up evolution, arising from what we might consider less complex forms. That way we can circumvent the issues of infinite regress and special pleading.
Blimey - Sriram levels of anthropocentricity - firstly how do we know there aren't other life forms way more neurological-complex than humans. But also why is the human bring more complex than mycelial network, or a star, or a tree - to think in that manner shows you cannot see beyond your human-like bias for complexity.

I said as far as we know. If you are saying a mycelium is more complex then it rather shoots the idea of consciousness due to complexity down.

I of course M using the principle of mediocrity in the universe which would suggest that the human brain should be among the average brain size for the universe.

I don't consider complexity from the top down only.
But if you talk about God or the necessary being then he's at the end of any hierarchy.

[ProfessorDavey]

I said as far as we know. If you are saying a mycelium is more complex then it rather shoots the idea of consciousness due to complexity down.

I don't think there is an objective 'scale' for complexity of such systems. That we perceive consciousness as somehow at the top of the tree is probably because ... err ... consciousness is really, really important to humans. It is highly subjective and, frankly anthropocentric.

But you are rather missing the point - it matters not one jot whether mycelial networks are more complex than the human brain or vice versa. The point is whether the mycelial network (or the human brain) is required to have been created top-down (i.e. by something more complex still) or bottom up (i.e. evolving from simpler forms). The problem for those nailing their colours to the former is the problem of infinite regress which can only by side-stepped by unevidenced special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think there is an objective 'scale' for complexity of such systems. That we perceive consciousness as somehow at the top of the tree is probably because ... err ... consciousness is really, really important to humans. It is highly subjective and, frankly anthropocentric.

But you are rather missing the point - it matters not one jot whether mycelial networks are more complex than the human brain or vice versa. The point is whether the mycelial network (or the human brain) is required to have been created top-down (i.e. by something more complex still) or bottom up (i.e. evolving from simpler forms). The problem for those nailing their colours to the former is the problem of infinite regress which can only by side-stepped by unevidenced special pleading.

The argument for God is only sidestepped by suspension of the principle of sufficient reason....which in itself is undeniably a special plead.

The implications of which seemed to have passed you by.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think there is an objective 'scale' for complexity of such systems. That we perceive consciousness as somehow at the top of the tree is probably because ... err ... consciousness is really, really important to humans. It is highly subjective and, frankly anthropocentric.

But you are rather missing the point - it matters not one jot whether mycelial networks are more complex than the human brain or vice versa. The point is whether the mycelial network (or the human brain) is required to have been created top-down (i.e. by something more complex still) or bottom up (i.e. evolving from simpler forms). The problem for those nailing their colours to the former is the problem of infinite regress which can only by side-stepped by unevidenced special pleading.

Infinite regress isn't a problem because it is not a solution to anything although you seem to persist in it being so merely a deferment of a solution.

[torridon]

No need for infinite regression.
All you need is a conscious entity which is aware of the past - but not controlled by it, with the power to exert conscious control rather than react.
The buck stops with your God given soul.
You are in control of your own destiny.

Which would pretty much negate the need for having a brain.  Why bother with billions of years of tiny incremental changes in genomes to produce a thinking brain if thinking just happens by magic at the end of all that ?

[ProfessorDavey]

The argument for God is only sidestepped by suspension of the principle of sufficient reason....which in itself is undeniably a special plead.

You speak as if the assertion of sufficient reason is some kind of proven, evidence-based, widely-accepted principle. It isn't - it is a vague incoherent philosophical argument based on unproven assumptions and circular reasoning.

Unless it is proven to be correct or there is strong evidence to support it (note - it isn't and there isn't), it doesn't need to be sidestepped.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You speak as if the assertion of sufficient reason is some kind of proven, evidence-based, widely-accepted principle. It isn't - it is a vague incoherent philosophical argument based on unproven assumptions and circular reasoning.

Unless it is proven to be correct or there is strong evidence to support it (note - it isn't and there isn't), it doesn't need to be sidestepped.

The principle of sufficient reason is what science is based on. Basically you're using it to try to disprove it!!!

Dispense with it, dispense with science. Stop talking sh**.

[Alan Burns]

Which would pretty much negate the need for having a brain.  Why bother with billions of years of tiny incremental changes in genomes to produce a thinking brain if thinking just happens by magic at the end of all that ?

Yes indeed.
God has brought into existence an awesome biological machine comprising unfathomable complexity.
And put you in charge of it. 

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes indeed.
God has brought into existence an awesome biological machine comprising unfathomable complexity.

..but not unfathomably complex enough to actually do any thinking!