Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Still more incoherence. How do you know that sufficient “material reactions” of sufficient complexity cannot generate an emergent property of awareness, just as multiple material reactions are observed all over nature to produce emergent properties of other types? 

Nothing actually emerges from material reactions other than more reactions.
The concept of emergent properties only exists in the conscious awareness of an outside observer in what they deem to be an emergent property.  Emergent properties comprise a conscious interpretation of some functionality or pattern perceived in the behaviour of other material entities, but the material entities under observation are just material elements reacting with other material elements from which nothing actually emerges.  Complexity does not define awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Nothing actually emerges from material reactions other than more reactions.

Another assertion, and in any case how do you know that consciousness isn’t “more reactions”, albeit of a particularly sophisticated kind? 

The concept of emergent properties only exists in the conscious awareness of an outside observer in what they deem to be an emergent property.

If you want to go full Bishop Berkeley (“This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are ideas perceived by the mind and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley) then the same could be said to be true about anything: consciousness, tables, rainbows, the moon, whatever. You have no argument to carve out just consciousness as an exception for this purpose.   

Emergent properties comprise a conscious interpretation of some functionality or pattern perceived in the behaviour of other material entities, but the material entities under observation are just material elements reacting with other material elements from which nothing actually emerges.

Yes, I know you assert that to be so but – so far at least – you’ve never been able to justify your assertion with an argument.

Complexity does not define awareness.

You still don’t seem to understand the meaning of “define”, but in any case the point here is that you have no argument to justify your assertion that sufficient complexity cannot produce consciousness.

It’s your assertion, so it’s your job to justify it. Why won’t you or can’t you do that?     

[Alan Burns]

But the consciousness is not the brain, it's a result of the activity of the brain. The brain is not aware, but then we are not just brains, because if we were our consciousness would persist after brain ACTIVITY ceased, and that does not appear to be the case. Consciousness is an element of the patterns of activity - the 'thought' - happening because of the brain.

My contention is that conscious awareness comprises awareness of brain activity - not the activity itself.
There are many witnesses of near death experiences who can claim that their conscious awareness continued after measurable brain activity ceased.  They were only able to provide these witness stories because a resumption of brain activity gave them the means to do so.  In most cases there would be no means of communicating their conscious awareness after permanent ceasing of physical brain activity.  I have personal witness to the last moments in the life of my wife's mother whose last words were "put that light out" and "mother!".  We first thought that these were just hallucinatory words with no deep meaning, but after reading of other near death experiences they relate well with the common experience of seeing a bright light and being greeted by deceased relatives.

[Alan Burns]

Another assertion, and in any case how do you know that consciousness isn’t “more reactions”, albeit of a particularly sophisticated kind? 

How would you differentiate a sophisticated material reaction from an unsophisticated material reaction?

[Nearly Sane]

My contention is that conscious awareness comprises awareness of brain activity - not the activity itself.
There are many witnesses of near death experiences who can claim that their conscious awareness continued after measurable brain activity ceased.  They were only able to provide these witness stories because a resumption of brain activity gave them the means to do so.  In most cases there would be no means of communicating their conscious awareness after permanent ceasing of physical brain activity.  I have personal witness to the last moments in the life of my wife's mother whose last words were "put that light out" and "mother!".  We first thought that these were just hallucinatory words with no deep meaning, but after reading of other near death experiences they relate well with the common experience of seeing a bright light and being greeted by deceased relatives.

Bugger Bognor

[Alan Burns]

If you want to go full Bishop Berkeley (“This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are ideas perceived by the mind and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley) then the same could be said to be true about anything: consciousness, tables, rainbows, the moon, whatever. You have no argument to carve out just consciousness as an exception for this purpose.   

Of course tables and chairs exist as material entities outside conscious awareness.
It is the interpretation of being able to categorise them as tables and chairs which takes place within our conscious awareness.  Outside our conscious awareness they just exist as material elements.  As I said previously, the concept of emergent properties can only exist in an outside observer's conscious awareness.

[jeremyp]

It is not merely as assertion.

For it not to be merely an assertion, you need some evidence.

Material reactions alone can never generate awareness.

Counter example: humans are a complex web of material reactions and they have awareness.

A material reaction can cause further reactions, but this does not define awareness.

See counter example above.

A conscious entity is not a reaction

Correct. It's not a reaction.

- it comprises simultaneous awareness of the current states of many material elements, something which defies any material definition because material elements have no perception of the state of other material elements - all they can do is pass on reactions.  In comparing animal behaviour with human behaviour the big difference is that most animal behaviour can be defined by predictable reactions based on biological instincts and learnt experiences without the need for conscious awareness.

You undermine your whole point when you use the word "most".

Humans are able to demonstrate their conscious awareness not by mere reactions, but by acts of deliberation to communicate what they are aware of in the forms of art and language.  You may try to argue that some of the higher forms of animals can demonstrate some evidence of conscious awareness, but this still does not comprise evidence of material explanations for awareness - God brought animals into existence as well as humans.  No doubt some humans will endeavour to try to generate conscious awareness from ever more complex material entities but they are doomed to failure because only God can create the spiritual entity of awareness which is you.

This is all just unsupported assertions. What evidence do you have that conscious awareness does not arise from "mere reactions"?

[Alan Burns]

What evidence do you have that conscious awareness does not arise from "mere reactions"?

I see no scientific evidence that conscious awareness can arise from mere material reactions alone.
It is science that can be used form a conclusion that nothing can be seen to emerge from material reactions other than more material reactions.

[Alan Burns]

humans are a complex web of material reactions and they have awareness.

The term "complex web" does not define awareness.
The fact that we have awareness is evident, but no amount of material complexity can be used to explain what awareness is or how it works.

[Nearly Sane]

The term "complex web" does not define awareness.
The fact that we have awareness is evident, but no amount of material complexity can be used to explain what awareness is or how it works.

He asserted

[Nearly Sane]

I see no scientific evidence that conscious awareness can arise from mere material reactions alone.
It is science that can be used form a conclusion that nothing can be seen to emerge from material reactions other than more material reactions.

Argument by personal incredulity and assertion

[jeremyp]

I see no scientific evidence that conscious awareness can arise from mere material reactions alone.

There's no evidence that anything exists except "mere material reactions".

It is science that can be used form a conclusion that nothing can be seen to emerge from material reactions other than more material reactions.

And how do you know conscious awareness is anything more than mere reactions?

Edit: Your qualification of "reactions" with the word "mere" is telling. There's nothing "mere" about the biochemistry involved in even a simple cell.

[Outrider]

My contention is that conscious awareness comprises awareness of brain activity - not the activity itself.

Perhaps, but what you said was that consciousness couldn't come from the brain because the brain was material and brain material can't be conscious.

There are many witnesses of near death experiences who can claim that their conscious awareness continued after measurable brain activity ceased.

There are billions of people who claim that there's a god. Whether people claim something isn't necessarily a reliable gauge of whether it's true or not.

They were only able to provide these witness stories because a resumption of brain activity gave them the means to do so.

They were only able to provide these stories because their brain activity hadn't in fact ceased, it may not even have paused.

In most cases there would be no means of communicating their conscious awareness after permanent ceasing of physical brain activity.

Almost like there was no consciousness there any more, you mean? But 'In most cases...'?

I have personal witness to the last moments in the life of my wife's mother whose last words were "put that light out" and "mother!".  We first thought that these were just hallucinatory words with no deep meaning, but after reading of other near death experiences they relate well with the common experience of seeing a bright light and being greeted by deceased relatives.

You mean that there's a consistent pattern to the way brain activity misfires under similar conditions - that's definitely evidence that there are spirits. It couldn't possibly be that, under emotional stress our brains the last parts of the brain to function are those with the heaviest concentrations of neural connections, like the sight centres and the deepest emotional connections? Nothing mundane like that...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How would you differentiate a sophisticated material reaction from an unsophisticated material reaction? 

Complexity.

Of course tables and chairs exist as material entities outside conscious awareness.

Not necessarily, but let’s agree that as axiomatic anyway. Why then would you apparently arbitrarily carve out just consciousness as something that must exist outside of the same materialistic paradigm?
 

It is the interpretation of being able to categorise them as tables and chairs which takes place within our conscious awareness.  Outside our conscious awareness they just exist as material elements.

But according to you the object still exists whether or not there’s anyone around to observe it right? In that case why can’t consciousness exist too whether or not there’s anyone around to decide what it is?

As I said previously, the concept of emergent properties can only exist in an outside observer's conscious awareness.

And for the reasons I explained earlier and you ignored, you’re still wrong about that. The “concept” of emergent properties is no more relevant than the concept of a chair for this purpose – either the material phenomena of both exist or the material phenomena of neither exists. You can’t just pick and choose about this to suit your faith beliefs.

I see no scientific evidence that conscious awareness can arise from mere material reactions alone.

There’s plenty of scientific evidence for emergent properties being a fact. You’re the one asserting consciousness to be an emergent property too to be “totally impossible” so it’s your job to justify your claim. So far at least, you haven’t come even close to doing that.
 

It is science that can be used form a conclusion that nothing can be seen to emerge from material reactions other than more material reactions.

 

Drivel. How does science form that conclusion?   

The term "complex web" does not define awareness.
The fact that we have awareness is evident, but no amount of material complexity can be used to explain what awareness is or how it works.

… he asserted without justification. Again.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Another assertion .....

You constantly accuse me of assertion without evidence.
But you are claiming conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions with zero evidence to back this up - all you have is correlation, but correlation alone is not evidence of causation.

Yes, material reactions in the brain are associated with conscious awareness because it is these reactions which are perceived and interpreted by the entity of conscious awareness which is "you".

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You constantly accuse me of assertion without evidence.

Or sound justifying reasons, yes.

But you are claiming conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions with zero evidence to back this up - all you have is correlation, but correlation alone is not evidence of causation.

Straw manning won’t help you here. I don’t claim that consciousness necessarily is an emergent property of minds – I just say that it’s a perfectly plausible hypothesis, that you have no argument to support your claim that it’s “totally impossible”, and that the alternative you assert (“goddidit”) requires multiple levels of assumptions with nothing at all to support them.   

Yet again: the failure to provide a complete picture of one explanation does NOT provide any evidence at all for your assertions about a different explanation for which you provide no evidence whatsoever. Why can’t you understand this?   

Yes, material reactions in the brain are associated with conscious awareness because it is these reactions which are perceived and interpreted by the entity of conscious awareness which is "you".

No, they’re “associated with conscious awareness” because so far that least that’s the most robust explanation for the phenomenon we have. Your frankly bizarre fantasies about supposed alternatives and the endless false arguments you attempt to justify them just make you look foolish. 

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

Or sound justifying reasons, yes.

Straw manning won’t help you here. I don’t claim that consciousness necessarily is an emergent property of minds – I just say that it’s a perfectly plausible hypothesis, that you have no argument to support your claim that it’s “totally impossible”, and that the alternative you assert (“goddidit”) requires multiple levels of assumptions with nothing at all to support them.   

Yet again: the failure to provide a complete picture of one explanation does NOT provide any evidence at all for your assertions about a different explanation for which you provide no evidence whatsoever. Why can’t you understand this?   

No, they’re “associated with conscious awareness” because so far that least that’s the most robust explanation for the phenomenon we have. Your frankly bizarre fantasies about supposed alternatives and the endless false arguments you attempt to justify them just make you look foolish.

Just to add Alan seems confused by correlation does not mean causation as meaning that correlation is no evidence whatsoever which would as an absolute remove all scientific evidence.

[Alan Burns]

No, they’re “associated with conscious awareness” because so far that least that’s the most robust explanation for the phenomenon we have. Your frankly bizarre fantasies about supposed alternatives and the endless false arguments you attempt to justify them just make you look foolish.

Talking of looking foolish - I just came across this bizarre scientific article which claims that love is an emergent property of the mammalian autonomic nervous system (in other words it is just an involuntary reaction).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9924740

It is amazing how people can try to justify such bizarre claims by bombarding us with a lot of scientific jargon which completely fails to define what love is.  The same is true of conscious awareness, because you cannot claim it to be an emergent property of material elements until you can define its functionality in material or scientific terms.  The hard truth is that scientists have no idea as to what comprises conscious awareness or how it works.  And our conscious awareness is intimately tied up with our consciously driven ability to drive our own thought processes to achieve consciously chosen goals.  I read the recent article you gave in a link concerning the works of Daniel Dennet which illustrates his monumental efforts to offer a materialistic explanation of conscious intent in the human mind.  The irony being that if there was a materialistic explanation for conscious intent, the role of consciousness would be nullified because all causation would be down to the inevitable consequence of material reactions.

[Nearly Sane]

Talking of looking foolish - I just came across this bizarre scientific article which claims that love is an emergent property of the mammalian autonomic nervous system (in other words it is just an involuntary reaction).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9924740

It is amazing how people can try to justify such bizarre claims by bombarding us with a lot of scientific jargon which completely fails to define what love is.  The same is true of conscious awareness, because you cannot claim it to be an emergent property of material elements until you can define its functionality in material or scientific terms.  The hard truth is that scientists have no idea as to what comprises conscious awareness or how it works.  And our conscious awareness is intimately tied up with our consciously driven ability to drive our own thought processes to achieve consciously chosen goals.  I read the recent article you gave in a link concerning the works of Daniel Dennet which illustrates his monumental efforts to offer a materialistic explanation of conscious intent in the human mind.  The irony being that if there was a materialistic explanation for conscious intent, the role of consciousness would be nullified because all causation would be down to the inevitable consequence of material reactions.

Is your belief in god voluntary? Could you stop believing in your god?

[Alan Burns]

Is your belief in god voluntary? Could you stop believing in your god?

I can only believe in what I discern to be true.
There is only one truth and we have just one lifetime to discover it.
We can all use our God given freedom to discern the truth from what we can perceive within our conscious awareness.
This thread could aptly be renamed "Searching for truth"

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Talking of looking foolish - I just came across this bizarre scientific article which claims that love is an emergent property of the mammalian autonomic nervous system (in other words it is just an involuntary reaction).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9924740

It is amazing how people can try to justify such bizarre claims by bombarding us with a lot of scientific jargon which completely fails to define what love is.

Your incredulity about an explanation is not a rebuttal of that explanation. Try to remember this because it's a mistake you make often.

The same is true of conscious awareness, because you cannot claim it to be an emergent property of material elements until you can define its functionality in material or scientific terms.

Why have you just repeated the same straw man I rebutted in my previous post?

The hard truth is that scientists have no idea as to what comprises conscious awareness or how it works.

That's not a hard truth at all - it's a lie. "Scientists" have lots of ideas about that, but so far the explanations are insufficiently complete to call them theories. That's why they're called "hypotheses" instead. "Godiddit" on the other hand is just white noise - it's not even wrong.     

And our conscious awareness is intimately tied up with our consciously driven ability to drive our own thought processes to achieve consciously chosen goals.

A logical impossibility you continue to lie about.

I read the recent article you gave in a link concerning the works of Daniel Dennet which illustrates his monumental efforts to offer a materialistic explanation of conscious intent in the human mind.  The irony being that if there was a materialistic explanation for conscious intent, the role of consciousness would be nullified because all causation would be down to the inevitable consequence of material reactions.

That's not an irony at all - it's just a repeated example of your inability to construct a coherent argument.   

[Nearly Sane]

I can only believe in what I discern to be true.
There is only one truth and we have just one lifetime to discover it.
We can all use our God given freedom to discern the truth from what we can perceive within our conscious awareness.
This thread could aptly be renamed "Searching for truth"

So you have no choice in what you believe and that's the truth, and yet I, in your view have a choice in what I believe, and that must be false. Which is an illogical position so I should ignore it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can only believe in what I discern to be true.

But when your reasons for discerning that are falsified you continue to ignore the falsifications you’re given and to repeat the same wrong arguments nonetheless. You do this presumably because your emotional attachment to your wrongheaded beliefs is too strong to allow you to grasp why you might be wrong about them.

There is only one truth and we have just one lifetime to discover it.

The first part of that is plainly wrong – there are lots of truths.

We can all use our God given freedom to discern the truth from what we can perceive within our conscious awareness.

Blind faith claim.

This thread could aptly be renamed "Searching for truth"

Or, in your case, “Running away from truth”.

[Nearly Sane]

...

The first part of that is plainly wrong – there are lots of truths.

Are there? What would that even mean?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Are there? What would that even mean?

Yes. It's true that there's a computer in front of me. It's also true that I took the dog for a walk this afternoon. That's more than one truth, contra AB's claim.