Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

The first convincing evidence of self awareness in humans began with the ancient cave paintings in which humans of their own volition started to depict in abstract form what they were aware of.  I have seen no such evidence in any other species.  Sophistication or complexity alone does not define self awareness.  The burden of proof lies with you to show how material reactions alone can self identify.

The burden of proof is just a complete mystery to you isn't it?

You claim it's impossible for self awareness to exist purely from the material world. Your claim, your burden of proof.

None of your above post even addresses it, indeed, it's contradictory. You say the cave paintings show self awareness but then you say sophistication or complexity aren't self awareness. So what is? Why are cave paintings the definition of self awareness?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No. That's just assertion.

No it isn’t. Any argument attempted here for a purposive world (fine tuning etc) has been falsified. That’s not just assertion, it’s a matter of record. That AB et al just ignore the falsifications they’re given doesn’t mean that they haven’t been made.   

It's not even in the general direction of 'know' even if you squint and give it a piggy back.

Yes it is. Do you “know” that gravity isn’t effected by invisible pixies holding stuff down with strings? How to you know that?

You are making a positive assertion that the 'world' is not purposive, where is your reasoning and evidence?

Yes, and as I explained I’d make the same “positive assertion” about pixies and gravity too. And that’s fine provided you treat knowledge as probabilistic rather than absolute. If you want to ground it in absolutism though then we can’t say we “know” anything so the term itself becomes meaningless.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No it isn’t. Any argument attempted here for a purposive world (fine tuning etc) has been falsified. That’s not just assertion, it’s a matter of record. That AB et al just ignore the falsifications they’re given doesn’t mean that they haven’t been made.   

Yes it is. Do you “know” that gravity isn’t effected by invisible pixies holding stuff down with strings? How to you know that?

Yes, and as I explained I’d make the same “positive assertion” about pixies and gravity too. And that’s fine provided you treat knowledge as probabilistic rather than absolute. If you want to ground it in absolutism though then we can’t say we “know” anything so the term itself becomes meaningless.   

What I was saying is that able able to disprove arguments for something are not a reason to say that the something itself is wrong. There is a difference between there is no reason to believe, and there is reason not to believe. If you slide that difference, you simple assert your knowledge. This isn't about absolutism, it's about you making a positive assertion that you then say you don't need to back up with reason and evidence.

[Alan Burns]

The burden of proof is just a complete mystery to you isn't it?

You claim it's impossible for self awareness to exist purely from the material world. Your claim, your burden of proof.

None of your above post even addresses it, indeed, it's contradictory. You say the cave paintings show self awareness but then you say sophistication or complexity aren't self awareness. So what is? Why are cave paintings the definition of self awareness?

The cave paintings were hugely significant.  They not only demonstrated that humans had conscious awareness of what was depicted in their painting - they also demonstrated the freedom humans employed in their choosing to make those paintings.  Conscious awareness and free will - the gifts of the human soul which no amount of material complexity can ever achieve.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

What I was saying is that able able to disprove arguments for something are not a reason to say that the something itself is wrong. There is a difference between there is no reason to believe, and there is reason not to believe. If you slide that difference, you simple assert your knowledge. This isn't about absolutism, it's about you making a positive assertion that you then say you don't need to back up with reason and evidence.

No. Of course I understand the difference between “there is no reason to believe, and there is reason not to believe” – I’ve had to explain it to others here often enough after all. That’s not the point though. The point is that when faced with competing positive hypotheses – purposive world vs non-purposive world, gravity vs pixies etc – then either you deny a priori the possibility of knowledge about any of them, or you select and reject on the basis of the reasoning and evidence available for them. That’s not to say that one day sound reasoning and robust evidence could not be found for a purposive world or for gravity pixies, but it is to say that for now we can reason our way to both being the wrong answers – and we call that conclusion “knowledge”.     

[Gordon]

The cave paintings were hugely significant.  They not only demonstrated that humans had conscious awareness of what was depicted in their painting - they also demonstrated the freedom humans employed in their choosing to make those paintings. 

They had brains Alan, just like us! The employed art, just like us.

Conscious awareness and free will - the gifts of the human soul which no amount of material complexity can ever achieve.

It's just biology, Alan: 'soul' is a meaningless terms, especially since you can say nothing meaningful to justify the notion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The cave paintings were hugely significant.  They not only demonstrated that humans had conscious awareness of what was depicted in their painting - they also demonstrated the freedom humans employed in their choosing to make those paintings.

Cave paintings are one indicator of conscious awareness yes, but there are others. Even if arbitrarily you picked just this one indicator and claimed it to be uniquely human though you’d be wrong. Have a look at the painting of a flower in the link done by an elephant. Not bad eh?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095416/Can-guess-painting-ELEPHANT-work-modern-artist.html

Conscious awareness and free will - the gifts of the human soul…

Blind faith claim (yet again).

…which no amount of material complexity can ever achieve.

You can keep asserting that all you like, but until you finally produce the justifying argument for it that you claim to have but never post, it can reasonably be dismissed out of hand.

Why not then just post the argument instead?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Cave paintings are one indicator of conscious awareness yes, but there are others. Even if arbitrarily you picked just this one indicator and claimed it to be uniquely human though you’d be wrong. Have a look at the painting of a flower in the link done by an elephant. Not bad eh?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095416/Can-guess-painting-ELEPHANT-work-modern-artist.html

This is one of many examples of humans training animals to mimic what humans can do.  It is humans using animals as tools to extend their human creativity.  As I indicated in an earlier post - the original cave paintings would have been an early example of humans having the power to do something of their own volition which demonstrates both conscious awareness and freedom to choose.  No one trained the cave painters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is one of many examples of humans training animals to mimic what humans can do.  It is humans using animals as tools to extend their human creativity.  As I indicated in an earlier post - the original cave paintings would have been an early example of humans having the power to do something of their own volition which demonstrates both conscious awareness and freedom to choose.  No one trained the cave painters.

Ah yes, I’d forgotten your secret army of animal trainers theory. So how does that work exactly – presumably millions of highly trained people belonging to a secret society of trainers sneak out every night in the wee small hours, round up all the animals and then train them to behave in the way they would if they were consciously aware? Do the animals have to take a test to prove they’re fully qualified before they’re let back into the wild? How about getting a framed certificate to hang on a tree or something too – that would be a nice touch don’t you think? After all, all those lions and zebras and armadillos and such have put in the shifts necessary at night class so they deserve some recognition I’d have thought…

…oh, I’ve just thought: maybe you should tell David Attenborough about these secret night classes that no-one’s ever noticed before so he can make a documentary about them too?

Still no news on your justifying argument for your “naturalistic consciousness is totally impossible” assertion by the way? Surely you must have something in locker? Anything? No?         

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No. Of course I understand the difference between “there is no reason to believe, and there is reason not to believe” – I’ve had to explain it to others here often enough after all. That’s not the point though. The point is that when faced with competing positive hypotheses – purposive world vs non-purposive world, gravity vs pixies etc – then either you deny a priori the possibility of knowledge about any of them, or you select and reject on the basis of the reasoning and evidence available for them. That’s not to say that one day sound reasoning and robust evidence could not be found for a purposive world or for gravity pixies, but it is to say that for now we can reason our way to both being the wrong answers – and we call that conclusion “knowledge”.     

That seems completely contradictory. What reasons and evidence do you have to take the position that you have reasons not to believe in a purposive 'world'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That seems completely contradictory. What reasons and evidence do you have to take the position that you have reasons not to believe in a purposive 'world'?

Occam’s razor, the anthropic principle, knowing why circular reasoning is a fallacy, observation of the real world (I didn’t seed my lawn recently purposely to feed the local birds), pretty much anything else that allows me to falsify the arguments of those who attempt to justify a claim of a purposive world.

What are you finding contradictory about this, and would you say the same about your knowledge that gravity rather than pixies are what holds stuff down?

You seem to me to be conflating two scenarios: when an answer is unknown but there are competing hypotheses of equivalent but limited merit (string theory vs loop theory for example) when a “don’t know” is justifiable, and when there’s huge evidence and reason for one answer and none for the other (gravity vs pixies for example) when it’s reasonable to call the true/not true designations that follow “knowledge”.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Occam’s razor, the anthropic principle, knowing why circular reasoning is a fallacy, observation of the real world (I didn’t seed my lawn recently purposely to feed the local birds), pretty much anything else that allows me to falsify the arguments of those who attempt to justify a claim of a purposive world.

What are you finding contradictory about this, and would you say the same about your knowledge that gravity rather than pixies are what holds stuff down?

You seem to me to be conflating two scenarios: when an answer is unknown but there are competing hypotheses of equivalent but limited merit (string theory vs loop theory for example) when a “don’t know” is justifiable, and when there’s huge evidence and reason for one answer and none for the other (gravity vs pixies for example) when it’s reasonable to call the true/not true designations that follow “knowledge”.

Evidence for gravity is not evidence against pixies causing it. One is a description of the phenomenon, the other is an explanation  for it, so you're making a category error there.

As to non purposive vs purpose, all you have is no evidence for purposive, and then defining that as evidence for non purposive, it isn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Evidence for gravity is not evidence against pixies causing it. One is a description of the phenomenon, the other is an explanation  for it, so you're making a category error there.

You’re better than that, but ok:

Proposal 1: gravitational effects are caused by the warping of spacetime and the motion of objects through the warped spacetime.

Proposal 2: gravitational effects are caused by invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings.

On the basis of the reasoning and evidence available to you, would you determine that one proposal is true and the other is not true, and would you also call your determinations “knowledge”?
 

As to non purposive vs purpose, all you have is no evidence for purposive, and then defining that as evidence for non purposive, it isn't.

Yes, I have evidence for non-purposive and no evidence for purposive. I also have arguments for purposive that I can falsify, and arguments for non-purposive that I cannot falsify. Which is the same situation I have for gravity vs pixies.

What’s the problem with calling the deductions that follow in either case “knowledge”? 

[Outrider]

The first convincing evidence of self awareness in humans began with the ancient cave paintings in which humans of their own volition started to depict in abstract form what they were aware of.

Convincing to whom?

I have seen no such evidence in any other species.

We see a spectrum of awareness across the kingdoms of life, and we have no clear definition (cave paintings notwithstanding) of when 'awareness' is elevated to 'self awareness' or whether that is synonymous with this nebulous concept of 'consciousness'.

Sophistication or complexity alone does not define self awareness.

Again, according to whom?

The burden of proof lies with you to show how material reactions alone can self identify.

In order to be definitive, yes, but I feel minded to remind you that the absence of such a proof does nothing to support your contention, which needs its own justification and proof, in whatever format you think you need. Your argument from incredulity against the purely material origin of self-awareness (and, subsequently, free will and other notions) is not an argument for anything else, it's at best an argument for 'we don't know'.

O.

[/quote]

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You’re better than that, but ok:

Proposal 1: gravitational effects are caused by the warping of spacetime and the motion of objects through the warped spacetime.

Proposal 2: gravitational effects are caused by invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings.

On the basis of the reasoning and evidence available to you, would you determine that one proposal is true and the other is not true, and would you also call your determinations “knowledge”?
 
Yes, I have evidence for non-purposive and no evidence for purposive. I also have arguments for purposive that I can falsify, and arguments for non-purposive that I cannot falsify. Which is the same situation I have for gravity vs pixies.

What’s the problem with calling the deductions that follow in either case “knowledge”?

Proposal 1 and 2 are not contradictory, that's your category error. Both are possible at the same time, because the idea of cause in your proposals aren't exclusionary.

What evidence do you have that the 'world' is non purposive? Indeed, how would you be able identify evidence that the world is non purposive?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Ah yes, I’d forgotten your secret army of animal trainers theory. So how does that work exactly – presumably millions of highly trained people belonging to a secret society of trainers sneak out every night in the wee small hours, round up all the animals and then train them to behave in the way they would if they were consciously aware? Do the animals have to take a test to prove they’re fully qualified before they’re let back into the wild? How about getting a framed certificate to hang on a tree or something too – that would be a nice touch don’t you think? After all, all those lions and zebras and armadillos and such have put in the shifts necessary at night class so they deserve some recognition I’d have thought…

…oh, I’ve just thought: maybe you should tell David Attenborough about these secret night classes that no-one’s ever noticed before so he can make a documentary about them too?

I know of no evidence of animals performing creative painting without any input from humans.
Or have I missed the bit where the elephant mixed his own paint, made his own brush and stretched his own canvas?

You seem to have missed the point that the early human cave painters created their cave art of their own volition.  They had no one to train them to do it, neither did evolutionary traits make them do it - they did it of their own free will to communicate what they perceived in their conscious awareness.

[Enki]

The first convincing evidence of self awareness in humans began with the ancient cave paintings in which humans of their own volition started to depict in abstract form what they were aware of.  I have seen no such evidence in any other species.  Sophistication or complexity alone does not define self awareness.  The burden of proof lies with you to show how material reactions alone can self identify.

As you seem to be entirely focused on cave paintings as the earliest demonstration of self awareness in human beings and as you think such activity has not been seen in any other species, perhaps you are not aware that neanderthals(a different species to homo sapiens) were able to produce perhaps even earlier cave engravings.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/oldest-known-neanderthal-engravings-discovered-in-french-cave-180982408/

There are other examples, by the way.

Unless, of course, you think that they were coached(by aliens, perhaps?)   

[SteveH]

...neanderthals (a different species to homo sapiens)...

Not necessarily. Some palaeontologists regard them as a sub-species, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, modern humans being Homo sapiens sapiens. In any case, division into species, genera, etc. is somewhat arbitrary: there used to be a plant genus, Hulthemia, with only one species in it, Hulthemia persica, but then botanists decided to abolish it and transfer H.p. to the genus Rosa as Rosa persica. Nothing had changed in the real world; it was purely an administrative decision. Ditto Homo [sapiens] neanderthalensis?

[torridon]

The first convincing evidence of self awareness in humans began with the ancient cave paintings in which humans of their own volition started to depict in abstract form what they were aware of.  I have seen no such evidence in any other species.  Sophistication or complexity alone does not define self awareness.  The burden of proof lies with you to show how material reactions alone can self identify.

Cave paintings demonstrate an advance in cognitive abilities and symbolic thinking, not self awareness.  Many refer to cave paintings as a marker of the 'cognitive revolution', the point in time at which humans who were already anatomically modern became mentally modern too.  Self awareness would have preceded this by millions of years, and indeed we now know that many other species have some level of self-awareness.  Interestingly, the Neanderthals also did cave paintings, and the earliest cave paintings done by Neanderthals are pretty much indistinguishable from the earliest ones done by Homo Sapiens.

[Enki]

Not necessarily. Some palaeontologists regard them as a sub-species, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, modern humans being Homo sapiens sapiens. In any case, division into species, genera, etc. is somewhat arbitrary: there used to be a plant genus, Hulthemia, with only one species in it, Hulthemia persica, but then botanists decided to abolish it and transfer H.p. to the genus Rosa as Rosa persica. Nothing had changed in the real world; it was purely an administrative decision. Ditto Homo [sapiens] neanderthalensis?

Although the general scientific consensus is that Neanderthals were a species, I do accept the fact that ideas of species and sub species changes. In ornithology, for instance, there are many examples of lumping(bringing several species together as one species) and splitting(deciding a sub species is a full species). This is usually a result of scientific advances such as DNA analysis. However the point of what I was suggesting is that Neanderthal cave painting/etching remains a problem for Alan, as the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans with a rational soul, not the Neanderthals.

[jeremyp]

The cave paintings were hugely significant.  They not only demonstrated that humans had conscious awareness of what was depicted in their painting - they also demonstrated the freedom humans employed in their choosing to make those paintings.  Conscious awareness and free will - the gifts of the human soul which no amount of material complexity can ever achieve.

Do you know why they made the paintings? Until we do, I don't see how you can assert that it demonstrates anything.

[jeremyp]

As to non purposive vs purpose, all you have is no evidence for purposive, and then defining that as evidence for non purposive, it isn't.

This nonsense about absence of evidence has really got to stop.

There is no evidence that an elephant is in my living room. However, I would expect evidence of an elephant in my living room if there actually was one. Therefore I conclude there is no elephant in my living room.

Yes, lack of evidence for a proposition absolutely can be evidence for its negation.

[jeremyp]

Proposal 1 and 2 are not contradictory,

Yes they are.

That's the end of your argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know of no evidence of animals performing creative painting without any input from humans.

So what - there are plenty of things that non-human animals can do that humans can't.

The most obvious example that indicates self awareness is the ability of an animal to recognise that it is looking at itself in a mirror, rather than seeing another member of its own species. Many species, not just humans, have this ability. And actually it is largely a learned ability as young babies often aren't able to recognise that they are looking at themselves in a mirror until they are taught.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes they are.

That's the end of your argument.

It would be if your statement was true for that part.
The cause in Proposal 1 is based on a materialist viewpoint which does not exclude the cause in Proposal 2.

It's also irrelevant to the question of non purposive/purposive which is the actual discussion.