Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

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

You missed the point.  If souls can think, there's no point in having a thinking brain with all of its foibles and limitations.  It is redundant.

[ProfessorDavey]

The principle of sufficient reason is what science is based on.

Complete and utter non-sense. One of the major criticisms is that the principle of sufficient reason is all about 'why' (in other words implied intent, desire or purpose) rather than how (in other word nothing further than causal mechanism). Science is, of course, based on trying to understand 'how', typically 'why' is left to philosophical argument. The principle of sufficient reason clearly sits in the latter camp and has nothing meaningful to do with the scientific method, which is, of course, what science is based on.

And principle of sufficient reason is fundamentally opposed to science in that it literally posits a 'sufficient reason' for every event or entity - science does nothing of the sort, and in may cases recognises redundancy and necessity (as in necessary and/or sufficient), which means that many events do not have any cause that is sufficient, but may have a number which are necessary but are required to act together to elicit the event or response.

Basically you're using it to try to disprove it!!!

Firstly, I'm not. But secondly, as so often you misunderstand the burden of proof. You claimed that I would need to sidestep the principle of sufficient reason which, to make any sense, is effectively a positive claim that the principle of sufficient reason is correct. Burden of proof is on you, matey. There is no burden on me to disprove it, although it is so full of holes it sinks without trace under its own inconsistencies and unproven presumptions.

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

Hmm - I'm a professional scientist - surely if science is based on the principle of sufficient reason, then surely it would be essential for everyone studying science to study this principle as its foundation. So in my 35 plus years of experience learning to be a professional scientist, practicing as a professional scientist and being involving in training the next generation of professional scientists how often has principle of sufficient reason been raised within a professional context. Zero, zip nada - while of course all the other key foundations for science (e.g. hypothesis derivation, objectivity, variation etc etc) are drilled into you. Why might this be - of yes, because the principle of sufficient reason has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Complete and utter non-sense. One of the major criticisms is that the principle of sufficient reason is all about 'why' (in other words implied intent, desire or purpose) rather than how (in other word nothing further than causal mechanism). Science is, of course, based on trying to understand 'how', typically 'why' is left to philosophical argument. The principle of sufficient reason clearly sits in the latter camp and has nothing meaningful to do with the scientific method.

Balderdash. Why or how issues are to do with hypothesis and test rather than reasons leading to a conclusion providing either sufficient or insufficient reason. This is a red herring interpolated by you.

And principle of sufficient reason is fundamentally opposed to science in that it literally posits a 'sufficient reason 'for every event or entity - science does nothing of the sort, and in may cases recognises redundancy and necessity (as in necessary and/or sufficient), which means that many events do not have any cause that is sufficient, but may have a number which are necessary but are required to act together to elicit the event or response.
Firstly, I'm not. But secondly, as so often you misunderstand the burden of proof. You claimed that I would need to sidestep the principle of sufficient reason which, to make any sense, is effectively a positive claim that the principle of sufficient reason is correct. Burden of proof is on you, matey. There is no burden on me to disprove it, although it is so full of holes it sinks without trace under its own inconsistencies and unproven presumptions.
Hmm - I'm a professional scientist - surely if science is based on the principle of sufficient reason, then surely it would be essential for everyone studying science to study this principle as its foundation. So in my 35 plus years of experience learning to be a professional scientist, practicing as a professional scientist and being involving in training the next generation of professional scientists how often has principle of sufficient reason been raised within a professional context. Zero, zip nada - while of course all the other key foundations for science (e.g. hypothesis derivation, objectivity, variation etc etc) are drilled into you. Why might this be - of yes, because the principle of sufficient reason has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method.

The aim of science is to seek an explanation for phenomena. Data provides sufficient information or insufficient information for a conclusion where explanations or reasons are inferred.

It is thus ridiculous to suggest the principle of sufficient reason is antiscience.

You are claiming then that the principle of sufficient reason is insufficient for conclusions. By doing that you are using the principle of sufficient reason to disprove the principle of sufficient reason.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is thus ridiculous to suggest the principle of sufficient reason is antiscience.

It is antiscience because it (at best) conflates 'how' and 'why' (which is inherently anti-scientific), and at worst implies intent, purpose or design associated with cause/effect when science makes no such claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is antiscience because it (at best) conflates 'how' and 'why' (which is inherently anti-scientific), and at worst implies intent, purpose or design associated with cause/effect when science makes no such claim.

The word ‘why” necessarily inferring purpose is a confection. Davey.

Your argument against the PSR because it does not satisfy PSR is not the first time you’ve Used it. I believe you postulated that emergent phenomena could be adequately and sufficiently explained in terms of it’s components.

It seems the requirement for sufficient reason runs through science.

[ProfessorDavey]

The word ‘why” necessarily inferring purpose is a confection. Davey.

No it isn't - the PSR is not clear whether it relates to 'how' or 'why' - that is fundamentally unscientific and is deliberately used by its proponents to shift questions of 'how' into questions of 'why', thereby implying purpose or design. Hence it most famous (and famously most implausible) claim to be able to prove god's existence.

[ProfessorDavey]

I believe you postulated that emergent phenomena could be adequately and sufficiently explained in terms of it’s components.

In terms of 'how' not in terms of 'why' - the PSR conflates the two - hence it is antiscientific.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In terms of 'how' not in terms of 'why' - the PSR conflates the two - hence it is antiscientific.

You have been shown that sufficient reason or explanation pervades science. Stop red herringing.

[ProfessorDavey]

You have been shown that sufficient reason or explanation pervades science. Stop red herringing.

The principle of sufficient reason does not pervade science - indeed as described it is dripping in bias and lack of objectivity and lacks clarity on whether we are considering 'how' or 'why' - these are all fundamentally anti-scientific elements.

And in a more fundamental sense, just because science and the principle of sufficient reason both appear to pertain to understanding cause/effect relationships does not mean that science is based on the principle of sufficient reason - it could be the other ways around. Or that both represent distinct and non-linked approaches. Fundamentally it seems to me that the principle of sufficient reason is a philosophical approach while science is, well, a scientific approach. Regardless of whether in the mists of time they were linked (and I'd argue that science as we understand it clearly pre-dated the principle of sufficient reason) in their modern consideration they have no valuable link.

[Alan Burns]

You missed the point.  If souls can think, there's no point in having a thinking brain with all of its foibles and limitations.  It is redundant.

The point you keep missing is what can possibly drive your thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions with no consciously controlled interaction?

[Alan Burns]

As soon as you actually investigate that narrative though it falls apart ...

And the question you keep avoiding is what precisely can carry out and guide such an investigation to a verifiable conclusion without conscious control?
How can you judge the result without consciously driven contemplation of the factors involved?
To imagine that all this can occur beneath the hood before it enters your conscious awareness truly beggars belief.

No doubt I will get accused once more of personal incredulity, but I will continue to witness to the truth of our God given gift of free will which allows us to choose to freely accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

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?     

I do not see the point you are trying to make here, Blue.
Just getting me to state the obvious does not help your argument.

I could ask you which of these makes more sense:

Are all your posts the inevitable result of unavoidable chemical reactions in your material brain?

Or are they the result of consciously validated words emanating from an entity of awareness with the power to exert conscious control in contemplating the factors involved?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And the question you keep avoiding is what precisely can carry out and guide such an investigation to a verifiable conclusion without conscious control?

And the answer (that I don't avoid at all) is exactly as it always has been here: while the experience of thinking may feel like there’s a third part agency in play, that model is logically impossible because of the insurmountable contradictions it gives you. Your solution to those problems (essentially “it’s magic innit”) is no solution at all – it’s the absence of one. More likely therefore is the answer that consciousness (including “investigating” and “verifying”) emerges spontaneously from the vastly complex interactions of the stuff that is us, and that different parts of our brains play different roles to produce the cohesive whole.       

How can you judge the result without consciously driven contemplation of the factors involved?

See above. How could you “consciously drive” something without a conscious driver that does some thinking of its own? You’re just relocating the same problem you perceive with the reason- and evidence-based answer to your reason- and evidence-denying superstitious speculation instead. 
 

To imagine that all this can occur beneath the hood before it enters your conscious awareness truly beggars belief.

Only yours Alan, and that’s called the argument from incredulity – a basic error in reasoning. If nonetheless you want to go that route do you not think a “soul” for which there’s no evidence at all, no need in a naturalistic model, and no explanation of any kind to explain how it thinks without thinking beggars belief a lot more?   

No doubt I will get accused once more of personal incredulity, but I will continue to witness to the truth of our God given gift of free will which allows us to choose to freely accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

You’re not “witnessing anything – you’re just asserting it.

I do not see the point you are trying to make here, Blue.
Just getting me to state the obvious does not help your argument.

The point I am making is that if you think the material explanation for consciousness strains credulity too far, how much more strained must it when you add “soul” to the hypothesis?     

I could ask you which of these makes more sense:

Are all your posts the inevitable result of unavoidable chemical reactions in your material brain?

Or are they the result of consciously validated words emanating from an entity of awareness with the power to exert conscious control in contemplating the factors involved?

It's a lot more complex than “the inevitable result of unavoidable chemical reactions in your material brain?”, but essentially yes. Moreover, this reason- and evidence-aligned conclusion sits quite happily alongside the superficially satisfying but necessarily false second option.       

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And the answer (that I don't avoid at all) is exactly as it always has been here: while the experience of thinking may feel like there’s a third part agency in play, that model is logically impossible because of the insurmountable contradictions it gives you. Your solution to those problems (essentially “it’s magic innit”) is no solution at all – it’s the absence of one. More likely therefore is the answer that consciousness (including “investigating” and “verifying”) emerges spontaneously from the vastly complex interactions of the stuff that is us, and that different parts of our brains play different roles to produce the cohesive whole.       

This reply does not answer the original question:

And the question you keep avoiding is what precisely can carry out and guide such an investigation to a verifiable conclusion without conscious control?

Your phrase: "emerges spontaneously from the vastly complex interactions" in no way offers a viable explanation for what can guide your thought patterns to a verifiable conclusion.  What precisely controls your thoughts if not conscious control?

[Sebastian Toe]

This reply does not answer the original question:
Your phrase: "emerges spontaneously from the vastly complex interactions" in no way offers a viable explanation for what can guide your thought patterns to a verifiable conclusion.

And yet you assert that your "soul" does offer a viable explanation?
My biological brain concludes that your magic soul explanation bears no credible weight given the contortions of "logic" and impossible mechanics around how it all "works" that you proffer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This reply does not answer the original question:
Quote
And the question you keep avoiding is what precisely can carry out and guide such an investigation to a verifiable conclusion without conscious control?

Your phrase: "emerges spontaneously from the vastly complex interactions" in no way offers a viable explanation for what can guide your thought patterns to a verifiable conclusion.  What precisely controls your thoughts if not conscious control?

First, yes it does – or at least it does when you strip away your reason- and evidence-free premise that there must be top down “control of thought patterns” rather than the bottom up emergence of “thought patterns”.

Second, as you should know by now given how often it’s been explained to you absence of evidence for one explanation does not provide evidence for a different explanation. Even if my answer was “don’t know’ all that would give you is a don’t know. You’d still have all your work ahead of you to justify your claim “soul”. Think Thor and thunder again.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Third, even if you’re incredulous about the answer you’re given at least it is an answer. Compare that with the same question about your conjecture “soul” – or indeed about any questions at all about your conjecture “soul” – about which you have absolutely no answers of any kind. Where is it? What does it consist of? How does it communicate with the automaton body it inhabits? How does it get there, and then leave? Where is it when it’s waiting for its host to be born? How does it make decisions without reference to antecedent events of its own? Why doesn’t a soul need a soul of its own to control it?

You know, the very basic questions on which you are completely utterly and implacably silent, while at the same time dismissing out of hand the naturalistic explanation because it’s not sufficient for you?           

[Alan Burns]

AB,

First, yes it does – or at least it does when you strip away your reason- and evidence-free premise that there must be top down “control of thought patterns” rather than the bottom up emergence of “thought patterns”.

I am still mystified as to how a "bottom up" approach can guide your thought patterns to reach viable conclusions.
Where can this guidance come from and what is it that can verify the conclusions?
I do not see any convincing evidence in your conjecture that it can  "emerge spontaneously from the vastly complex interactions"

[Gordon]

I am still mystified as to how a "bottom up" approach can guide your thought patterns to reach viable conclusions.
Where can this guidance come from and what is it that can verify the conclusions?
I do not see any convincing evidence in your conjecture that it can  "emerge spontaneously from the vastly complex interactions"

Your incredulity really is chronic these days, Alan - your biology does all that is required, even if aspects of it operate subconciously and is not yet fully understood: but you simply can't handle the consequences of this because it negates the 'god/soul' notion that you're so personally invested in.

If you were correct then neurologists studying consciousness and the brain would be factoring in the 'soul' interactions you claim - and as far as I can see they aren't, presumably because there is no testable hypothesis and, anyway, I doubt many would regard your ideas as being a serious proposition in the first place.

That should indicate to you that trying to ram unevidenced religious superstitions into biology is a fools errand.   

[ProfessorDavey]

I am still mystified as to how a "bottom up" approach can guide your thought patterns to reach viable conclusions.
Where can this guidance come from and what is it that can verify the conclusions?
I do not see any convincing evidence in your conjecture that it can  "emerge spontaneously from the vastly complex interactions"

It seems remarkable to me that you struggle with this concept so much AB.

Look at embryonic development - if you take, as a starting point, the single fertilised oocyte, the zygote. Clearly that cell is incredibly simple in comparison with what may develop from it. It has no brain, it has no consciousness, it has no neurological development. Indeed it has no developed tissues whatsoever. It contains genetic information in the form of molecular DNA.

Yet from this much simpler structure incredible complexity may develop - but as we move through the stages we also see that the earliest brain development does not have consciousness, nor memory etc etc - so complexity develops from simplicity.

Our whole development is an exemplar of bottom-up, complexity from simplicity in action. Why do you have such an issue with this AB.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The principle of sufficient reason does not pervade science - indeed as described it is dripping in bias and lack of objectivity and lacks clarity on whether we are considering 'how' or 'why' - these are all fundamentally anti-scientific elements.

And in a more fundamental sense, just because science and the principle of sufficient reason both appear to pertain to understanding cause/effect relationships does not mean that science is based on the principle of sufficient reason - it could be the other ways around. Or that both represent distinct and non-linked approaches. Fundamentally it seems to me that the principle of sufficient reason is a philosophical approach while science is, well, a scientific approach. Regardless of whether in the mists of time they were linked (and I'd argue that science as we understand it clearly pre-dated the principle of sufficient reason) in their modern consideration they have no valuable link.

You cannot avoid philosophy in the doing of science or how powerful a tool you think it is. Or how seriously to take it.

It's that which gives rise to obvious scientism.

If in the case of the universe we say the universe just is, for example then science is curtailed .....or it has hit the buffers.

[ProfessorDavey]

You cannot avoid philosophy in the doing of science or how powerful a tool you think it is. Or how seriously to take it.

Modern philosophy and science do different things - both have their value, but that doesn't mean that science is somehow based on a particular philosophy. Indeed that notion would be ludicrous if that particular philosophy has a history that, at best, goes back to a few centuries BC, while there is evidence for scientific endeavour from thousands of years prior to that.

But you might want to ask the following question - to what extent has science directly benefited our lives and to what extent has the principle of sufficient reason directly benefited our lives.

[ProfessorDavey]

If in the case of the universe we say the universe just is ...

Oh dear back into your inability to consider time (and time/space) as anything other than constant and unidirectional.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear back into your inability to consider time (and time/space) as anything other than constant and unidirectional.

My inabilities or otherwise are non sequitur to the claim by Bertrand Russell et al that the universe just is. Do you think the universe just is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you thought about Alan's soul hypothesis/conjecture/theory/obvious fact?
Do you buy into the soul controlling the physical brain, in real-time whilst itself is residing outwith our spacetime and connecting to our brain via quantum tunneling?

I can't vouch for the soul controlling the physical brain but there may be support for a soul or consciousness and another universe in which it resides and a connection with this universe.

[Sebastian Toe]

I can't vouch for the soul controlling the physical brain but there may be support for a soul or consciousness and another universe in which it resides and a connection with this universe.

.......and that support lies where?
(I wasn't aware that you are a multiversalist!)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.......and that support lies where?
(I wasn't aware that you are a multiversalist!)

I'm glad you asked.
I am indebted for part of my argument to an atheist internet philosopher who was trying to debunk the Thomist argument from change. The 'debunking ' went something like this. Modern science leads us to support the B theory of time and the block universe in which all of existence the whole of space time exists as a block in which there can be no change as such since past present and future are all 'blocked.

viewed in all their dimensions then, things which change are really kinds of static lumps representing there existence in the block universe. Like raisins in a cake.

Since change then is an illusion, then so is science, evolution, emergence anything that involves change.

So nothing actually changes and therefore process and mechanisms are illusions.

Since there is no mechanism there can be no actual thinking.

But hang on, something is experiencing change. Change is being percieved. It cannot be the brain percieving it since the brain doesn't change.

One explanation is that what is percieving change cannot be part of this block universe must be scanning through the lump in blocked  existence that equates to our bodies' history.

So our consciousnesses must be as you say, outwith the blocked universe our bodies inhabit but there must be a specific connection with our blocked brains and it's blocked history with this consciousness which is doing the scanning and has to be outwith the universe.

The dilemma now is, for the brain functionists among you who see consciousness as an emergence out of brain processes, Does all that have to be dumped.....or do you have to dump the block universe model you use when arguing cosmologically?

The universe then in a block universe is not  a scientifically observed process or processes but more like a piece of art.

Finally, now it looks as though Alan Burns has an argument I expect his detractors to grovel apologetically before him. Perhaps you Seb should eat a plate of luverly English eel pie and Mash and Hillside, an essex chap made to publicly declare Alan a 'Diamond Geezer'
and maybe those who think I can only think in terms of time's arrow should be grovelling to me. So get on those knees Davey.