Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I take it that his point is that consciousness is unlike anything physically corporeal or what we would expect from physical corporality.
It is emerged or has emerged from physical corporality. It seems to me that stating that it must be physical is committing the fallacy of composition.

Except that it is Alan who is making the claim that it cannot possibly be physical, or, for that matter, anything but god-magic. He has also said that his claim is based on sound logic. Therefore the burden of proof is entirely on him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I take it that his point is that consciousness is unlike anything physically corporeal or what we would expect from physical corporality.

It’s not a point, it’s an assertion or a declaration. He’ll never justify it with an argument though (despite claiming to have the “sound logic" to do so).

It is emerged or has emerged from physical corporality. It seems to me that stating that it must be physical is committing the fallacy of composition.

No, it’s the opposite of that. The fallacy of composition is (for example) what you rely on for your first cause “proof” of god – “lots of stuff in the universe is contingent, therefore the universe must also be contingent”. The point here on the other hand is that consciousness does not share the properties of its constituent parts – no individual neuron from a brain is conscious, but sufficient trillions of them interacting are (or at least appear to be).

I myself are not convinced yet that consciousness is not a physical phenomena but would say that I'm also convinced either that consciousness is the same as intelligence or the sum of lots and lots of intelligence which again  seems like committing the fallacy of composition.

It’s your prerogative to be not convinced. What you can’t to though is as AB does – ie, to overreach from “I’m not convinced” to “therefore it’s impossible” with no logical path between them.

[torridon]

I have to ask the obvious question:
What is controlling the rational analysis if it is not your conscious mind?

For an analogy, consider the self-driving car.  Who is controlling the car if there is no driver ?  Our traditional assumption that a car needs a driver reflects our traditional Cartesian assumption that a mind needs a spirit, or soul to animate it. 

In actual fact, our minds have evolved to drive themselves, rather like driverless cars.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Torri,

For an analogy, consider the self-driving car.  Who is controlling the car if there is no driver ?  Our traditional assumption that a car needs a driver reflects our traditional Cartesian assumption that a mind needs a spirit, or soul to animate it.

In actual fact, our minds have evolved to drive themselves, rather like driverless cars.

Just to warn you AB will now give this the body swerve into "Aha, but the self-driving car only works because there was a software programmer at the outset, therefore God!" or some such drivel.

You have been warned!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s not a point, it’s an assertion or a declaration. He’ll never justify it with an argument though (despite claiming to have the “sound logic" to do so).

No, it’s the opposite of that. The fallacy of composition is (for example) what you rely on for your first cause “proof” of god – “lots of stuff in the universe is contingent, therefore the universe must also be contingent”.

Nothing emergent (see Wikipedia entry on fallacy of composition) or composite can be necessary so appealing to the composition of the universe is a self defeating argument for it's necessity

The point here on the other hand is that consciousness does not share the properties of its constituent parts – no individual neuron from a brain is conscious, but sufficient trillions of them interacting are (or at least appear to be).

It could be sufficient numbers but not necessarily. It could be their organisation for instance or sequencing so all we can say is numbers of neurons plus the explanatory gap equals consciousness or even the explanatory gap equals consciousness since we don't yet know what fills the gap.

It’s your prerogative to be not convinced. What you can’t to though is as AB does – ie, to overreach from “I’m not convinced” to “therefore it’s impossible” with no logical path between them.

It's one's duty not to be convinced one can't just conclude that it's just a case of numbers of neurons. That would be eliminative.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nothing emergent (see Wikipedia entry on fallacy of composition) or composite can be necessary so appealing to the composition of the universe is a self defeating argument for it's necessity

Open a fresh packet of garibaldis, make yourself a nice cup of tea and then have a go at re-working that into a cogent thought. 

It could be sufficient numbers but not necessarily. It could be their organisation for instance or sequencing so all we can say is numbers of neurons plus the explanatory gap equals consciousness or even the explanatory gap equals consciousness since we don't yet know what fills the gap.

But the point here is that an explanatory gap does not give AB or anyone else a justification for filling it with whatever superstitious belief most takes their fancy.

It's one's duty not to be convinced one can't just conclude that it's just a case of numbers of neurons. That would be eliminative.

See my first point above. If you run out of garibaldis, try the jammy dodgers. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Open a fresh packet of garibaldis, make yourself a nice cup of tea and then have a go at re-working that into a cogent thought. 

But the point here is that an explanatory gap does not give AB or anyone else a justification for filling it with whatever superstitious belief most takes their fancy.

See my first point above. If you run out of garibaldis, try the jammy dodgers.

OK If saying that because everything in the universe is contingent so the universe is contingent means the fallacy of composition has been committed
then saying because all the neurons in the brain( and you suggest that consciousness is due to sufficient numbers of neurons) are physical then consciousness is physical the fallacy of composition is also committed.

Alan, you've won and can go home now.




P.S.You cannot have an necessary entity which has emerged or is composite but that's neither here nor there

[Sebastian Toe]

then saying because all the neurons in the brain( and you suggest that consciousness is due to sufficient numbers of neurons) are physical then consciousness is physical

Could you point out where on this board, people have said that consciousness is physical?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK If saying that because everything in the universe is contingent so the universe is contingent means the fallacy of composition has been committed…

It does.

…then saying because all the neurons in the brain( and you suggest that consciousness is due to sufficient numbers of neurons) are physical then consciousness is physical the fallacy of composition is also committed.

No-one says “because all the neurons in the brain( and you suggest that consciousness is due to sufficient numbers of neurons) are physical then consciousness is physical” – it’s a reasonable and reasoned working hypothesis that consciousness is “physical” inasmuch as it’s well-aligned with the basic model of emergence yes but that “is” is only a default, albeit not least because no-one has even been able to define or demonstrate a "non-physical” that it could occupy instead.   

Alan, you've won and can go home now.

Very funny.

I notice you just ducked the main point here too by the way – ie, absence of an explanation or an insufficiently complete explanation for a phenomenon does not validate throwing any superstitious belief you like into the explanatory gap and calling that the explanation instead – ie, basically AB’s entire MO.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It does.

No-one says “because all the neurons in the brain( and you suggest that consciousness is due to sufficient numbers of neurons) are physical then consciousness is physical” – it’s a reasonable and reasoned working hypothesis that consciousness is “physical” inasmuch as it’s well-aligned with the basic model of emergence yes but that “is” is only a default, albeit not least because no-one has even been able to define or demonstrate a "non-physical” that it could occupy instead.

But only as reasonable a working hypothesis as the universe is contingent not least because no one has been able to define or demonstrate a necessary entity.....which according to you isn't reasonable at all.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It does.

No-one says “because all the neurons in the brain( and you suggest that consciousness is due to sufficient numbers of neurons) are physical then consciousness is physical” – it’s a reasonable and reasoned working hypothesis that consciousness is “physical” inasmuch as it’s well-aligned with the basic model of emergence yes but that “is” is only a default, albeit not least because no-one has even been able to define or demonstrate a "non-physical” that it could occupy instead.   

Very funny.

I notice you just ducked the main point here too by the way – ie, absence of an explanation or an insufficiently complete explanation for a phenomenon does not validate throwing any superstitious belief you like into the explanatory gap and calling that the explanation instead – ie, basically AB’s entire MO.

Will you be advising Boris Johnson at all tomorrow? I understand it's olympic class turdpolishing .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But only as reasonable a working hypothesis as the universe is contingent…

Of course not. “The universe is contingent because its components are contingent” rests four square on the fallacy of composition.

“Consciousness appears to be a material phenomenon” on the other hand does not rest on that (or on any other) fallacy because the only alternative (ie, a ‘non-physical”) is just incoherent.

Oh, and even if that wasn’t the case if you wanted to claim a proof for "god” you’d need something a lot more robust that a “reasonable working hypothesis” for validation.   

… not least because no one has been able to define or demonstrate a necessary entity.....which according to you isn't reasonable at all.

Er, have you forgotten so soon that you precisely do think you can demonstrate a necessary entity that you call “god"?

Oh, and it’s a dubious claim that there aren’t necessary entities in the universe too in any case by the way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Will you be advising Boris Johnson at all tomorrow? I understand it's olympic class turdpolishing .

Your typically graceless running away is noted.

Again.

[Alan Burns]

For an analogy, consider the self-driving car.  Who is controlling the car if there is no driver ?  Our traditional assumption that a car needs a driver reflects our traditional Cartesian assumption that a mind needs a spirit, or soul to animate it. 

In actual fact, our minds have evolved to drive themselves, rather like driverless cars.

Driverless cars were designed by humans to replicate what humans do to drive a car.  The ultimate controller of the driverless car originates in the human mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Me (Reply 45453):

Just to warn you AB will now give this the body swerve into "Aha, but the self-driving car only works because there was a software programmer at the outset, therefore God!" or some such drivel.

You have been warned!

You (reply 45463

Driverless cars were designed by humans to replicate what humans do to drive a car.  The ultimate controller of the driverless car originates in the human mind.

For let it be said, truly I have the Power of Prophecy! Praise be!

(Coming next: the winner of next Saturday's 4.30 at Kempton Park…)

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Me (Reply 45453):

You (reply 45463

For let it be said, truly I have the Power of Prophecy! Praise be!

(Coming next: the winner of next Saturday's 4.30 at Kempton Park…)

Looks like you are beginning to think like me 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Looks like you are beginning to think like me   

Now there’s a dispiriting thought…

Anyway, how’s it coming with you finding a logical path from “I’m not convinced by explanation X” to “explanation X is therefore impossible”?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Of course not. “The universe is contingent because its components are contingent” rests four square on the fallacy of composition.

But so does Consciousness is physical because neurons are physical rest four square on the fallacy of composition and yet you see it as a reasonable working hypothesis. So you are special pleading. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

A composite necessary entity is incoherent.

I'm sorry but you managed to get entangled in the workings of your own turd polishing

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But so does Consciousness is physical because neurons are physical rest four square on the fallacy of composition and yet you see it as a reasonable working hypothesis. So you are special pleading. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

Oh dear – slowly now: the two potential states for the universe “contingent“ and “necessary” are, conceptually at least, coherent.

Of the two properties you propose for consciousness on the other hand (“material” and “non-material”), only one of them (“material”) is coherent – the other (“non-material”) is just white noise. 

Can you see the difference between the two propositions now?
   

A composite necessary entity is incoherent.

Why? How would you rule out the possibility that the universe is its own cause – ie, “necessary” (you know, the question you keep running away from)?

I'm sorry but you managed to get entangled in the workings of your own turd polishing

If that non-thought comforts you, I’d stick with it as if I were you as you have no arguments to deploy instead.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear – slowly now: the two potential states for the universe “contingent“ and “necessary” are, conceptually at least, coherent.

Of the two properties you propose for consciousness on the other hand (“material” and “non-material”), only one of them (“material”) is coherent – the other (“non-material”) is just white noise. 

Can you see the difference between the two propositions now?
   
Why? How would you rule out the possibility that the universe is its own cause – ie, “necessary” (you know, the question you keep running away from)?

If that non-thought comforts you, I’d stick with it as if I were you as you have no arguments to deploy instead.

Stop trying to turdpolish your way out of it. You want a different set of rules to cover excuse, your fallacy of composition and another set of rules to not excuse someone elses.

When you are caught you dream up some excuse for why we should overlook the fallacious basis.

You've been found the stripiest minteist humbug in the bag.

And your fallacy of composition accusation self defeats your argument that the universe is not contingent anyway. Your done.

Alan, have a cup of tea and sleep the sleep of the just.

Gordon, pull down the shutters of Religionethics as a failed atheist experiment.

Trentvoyager, peel those leprechauns and bang 'em in the oven........The term is over and the holidays have begun.

[Alan Burns]

Anyway, how’s it coming with you finding a logical path from “I’m not convinced by explanation X” to “explanation X is therefore impossible”?

Can you please remind me just what was your explanation for well reasoned thoughts to drop out of subconscious brain activity without the need for conscious control?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Stop trying to turdpolish your way out of it. You want a different set of rules to cover excuse, your fallacy of composition and another set of rules to not excuse someone elses.

When you are caught you dream up some excuse for why we should overlook the fallacious basis.

You've been found the stripiest minteist humbug in the bag.

And your fallacy of composition accusation self defeats your argument that the universe is not contingent anyway. Your done.

Alan, have a cup of tea and sleep the sleep of the just.

Gordon, pull down the shutters of Religionethics as a failed atheist experiment.

Trentvoyager, peel those leprechauns and bang 'em in the oven........The term is over and the holidays have begun.

Which part of the explanation of the difference between comparing two coherent concepts and a comparing a coherent concept with white noise incoherence is it that confusing you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you please remind me just what was your explanation for well reasoned thoughts to drop out of subconscious brain activity without the need for conscious control?

No. So, back to the question then: what logical path do you propose to take you from “I’m not convinced by explanation X” to “explanation X is therefore impossible” – ie, the claim you keep asserting but never justify?

[torridon]

Driverless cars were designed by humans to replicate what humans do to drive a car.  The ultimate controller of the driverless car originates in the human mind.

Is a poodle not a poodle because it was 'designed' by artificial selection as opposed to purely natural selection ?  Notwithstanding that, the value of the analogy lies in the insight that a car doesn't really need a driver to drive it, and likewise, a mind does not need another mind to control it. Minds operate autonomously.  The claim that you need a mind to make your mind work is a baseless and pointless exercise in circular reasoning.

[torridon]

Can you please remind me just what was your explanation for well reasoned thoughts to drop out of subconscious brain activity without the need for conscious control?

That we don't fully understand such things yet does not invalidate empirical observation.  The better attitude is to work on how conscious thought processes derive from non-conscious neural processes.  Simply living in denial of science is not a fruitful attitude.  All major advances in science were counterintuitive when first proposed.  When ancient Greeks first realised that our planet was round, there would have been many like you responding 'please remind me just how people living at the underneath don't fall off'..