The power of prayer

[wigginhall]

Outside human perception, everything just exist as simple constituent parts.  Any higher levels of perceived organisation are entirely defined and categorised by the subjective conscious perception of human beings.

You are going down the road to full-on Berkeley type idealism, that everything is mind.   It's an interesting set of ideas, but not very useful.   For example, stars exist, but according to you, don't really, unless I have the concept of stars.   Where does that get you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

You are going down the road to full-on Berkeley type idealism, that everything is mind.   It's an interesting set of ideas, but not very useful.   For example, stars exist, but according to you, don't really, unless I have the concept of stars.   Where does that get you?

Nowhere much - if we don't proceed as if there's a world "out there" then what could we do instead? AB's problem I suspect is worse than that though - he seems to accept that some phenomena do exist independent of his ability to "perceive" them - tables, bananas etc - but that others do not - eg, systems, or at least systems that haven't been consciously designed top down.

It's all a bit arbitrary, but it gives him just enough wiggle room to pop in a non-material "soul" to do the interpreting or some such.     

[wigginhall]

Wiggs,

Nowhere much - if we don't proceed as if there's a world "out there" then what could we do instead? AB's problem I suspect is worse than that though - he seems to accept that some phenomena do exist independent of his ability to "perceive" them - tables, bananas etc - but that others do not - eg, systems, or at least systems that haven't been consciously designed top down.

It's all a bit arbitrary, but it gives him just enough wiggle room to pop in a non-material "soul" to do the interpreting or some such.     

Yes, although tables and bananas can be seen as systems in a way.   I think AB said that the universe consists of particles which react, but how does he know that?  I think Berkeley went full-tilt and said that everything is mind.   As you say, AB is trying to have a half-way house. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Yes, although tables and bananas can be seen as systems in a way.   I think AB said that the universe consists of particles which react, but how does he know that?  I think Berkeley went full-tilt and said that everything is mind.   As you say, AB is trying to have a half-way house.

Quite so. By chance I read a while back about how difficult machine recognition can be with reference to tables. After all, what's a table? Most people can tell you straight away what is and isn't a table, but it's actually a hard problem - when does a flat surface supported off the ground become or cease to become a table and instead become something else? A workman's saw bench for example isn't a table, but how would you programme a machine to distinguish that flat surface on legs from, say, a coffee table?

The answer incidentally is that you don't. Rather software uses heuristics that feed back whether the machine got it right or not such that eventually it builds a model that's good enough for real world application.     

[Alan Burns]

'The process of perceiving these events' is done by your soul, which according to you does not actually reside in this universe IIRC.
Is that correct?

You have to ask the question:

How can conscious perception be achieved by the deterministic activity of atomic particles? 

Atomic particles react to events - they do not consciously perceive.
Conscious perception requires the properties of billions of atomic particles to be perceived by a single entity of awareness.  Many human brain will cells contain the information to be perceived, but physical science has no definition for the entity which perceives this information.  And not only does this entity perceive the information in the brain, it can interact with it in a way which can't be explained by deterministic science.

The human race has been aware of their spiritual nature for several thousand years, and contrary to the opinions of many misinformed people, current scientific discoveries have not been able to disprove our spiritual nature.

[ekim]

To which the staunch atheist replies "why did God make the path so stupidly narrow?"

To which the believer replies "God didn't make any paths.  The paths were created by man.  One path to climb back to the source/destination he had fallen from, which is easier when he releases his burdens.  The wider path is a continuation of his fall made more likely as his burden of attachments continue to grow."  As the man said ' Learn from me .... as my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

[Sebastian Toe]

You have to ask the question:

How can conscious perception be achieved by the deterministic activity of atomic particles? 

Atomic particles react to events - they do not consciously perceive.
Conscious perception requires the properties of billions of atomic particles to be perceived by a single entity of awareness.  Many human brain will cells contain the information to be perceived, but physical science has no definition for the entity which perceives this information.  And not only does this entity perceive the information in the brain, it can interact with it in a way which can't be explained by deterministic science.

The human race has been aware of their spiritual nature for several thousand years, and contrary to the opinions of many misinformed people, current scientific discoveries have not been able to disprove our spiritual nature.

Is that a yes or a no?

[Alan Burns]

Is that a yes or a no?

I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.

[torridon]

Outside human perception, everything just exist as simple constituent parts.  Any higher levels of perceived organisation are entirely defined and categorised by the subjective conscious perception of human beings.

I think you are very confused about this. Termite mounds were 'working' long before humans noticed and studied them.  Their 'emergent' properties are properties of the mound not of any outside observer. We can observe them and label them but that does not define them; they are what they are and they do what they do. The way you are arguing is as if gravity did not exist until an apple happened to fall on Isaac Newton's head one day and he thought up the theory of gravitation. Emergent phenomena are properties of complex systems and there always was complex system before human evolved and there will be complex systems after we have gone.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have to ask the question:

How can conscious perception be achieved by the deterministic activity of atomic particles?

Not if you find an unsatisfactory answer to give you a mandate to pop in "God", "soul" etc rather than just a "don't know" you don't.   

Atomic particles react to events - they do not consciously perceive.

Depends what you mean by "events", and it's sub-atomic particles in any case but yes - individually they cannot "perceive" - ie, interpret - anything.

Conscious perception requires the properties of billions of atomic particles to be perceived by a single entity of awareness.

No. The "billions of atomic particles" is the "single entity of awareness". That's the point. Consciousness is an emergent property of those countless and individually non-conscious component parts.

Many human brain will cells contain the information to be perceived, but physical science has no definition for the entity which perceives this information.

Of course it does. That's what theory of mind is about. That it doesn't have all the answers yet - or may never do - is a secondary matter.

And not only does this entity perceive the information in the brain, it can interact with it in a way which can't be explained by deterministic science.

No, of course it can be explained and besides your dualism - mind vs body - is bogus. What would this mind be if not for a property of the body?

The human race has been aware of their spiritual nature for several thousand years, and contrary to the opinions of many misinformed people, current scientific discoveries have not been able to disprove our spiritual nature.

That's called the negative proof fallacy, and moreover the perception of a "spiritual" dimension to our existence is entirely irrelevant to the argument. "Being aware of" and "demonstrating to be the case" are not the same thing at all.   

[Sebastian Toe]

I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.

So, not actually part of the universe but somewhere else?

[torridon]

Atomic particles react to events - they do not consciously perceive.
Conscious perception requires the properties of billions of atomic particles to be perceived by a single entity of awareness.  Many human brain will cells contain the information to be perceived, but physical science has no definition for the entity which perceives this information.  And not only does this entity perceive the information in the brain, it can interact with it in a way which can't be explained by deterministic science.

All these things are classic instances of emergence of complex phenomena from simpler underlying constituents. Einstein was a really clever bloke, but it wasn't because he had lots of really clever neurons.  No neuron is clever, and yet cleverness arises out of the complex systems of interconnected neurons.

Similarly, an ant is a pretty dim creature with only a tiny brain, and yet an ant colony can make intelligent decisions about where to site a nest.  The intelligence of the colony emerges out of the communication within the system of ants.

[torridon]

I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.

But of course your 'spiritual soul' is just an idea without any justification, an idea born of nothing more profound than incredulity, therefore limited usefulness.

[SusanDoris]

Is that a yes or a no?

Ah! I like your response. I had Synthetic Dave read that chunk of garbled prose several times and considered responding to the last sentence but rejected the idea!

[ippy]

I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.

What make you think that Alan? How do you know? How can you or anyone else possibly know that?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.

Actually what you're "implying" first is a "spiritual soul" to begin with, albeit without any sort of coherent logic or evidence to support the contention. What this supposed soul is made of would be a secondary matter once you've established the premise, though pouffing into existence these "non-material elements" gets you off the hook I guess of any kind of rational enquiry into what they might be. 

[Alan Burns]

Emergent phenomena are properties of complex systems and there always was complex system before human evolved and there will be complex systems after we have gone.

The meaning word "complex" is a product of human perception.  We perceive some things as complex because we can recognise some form of functionality or interactivity, but this recognition is entirely the product of subjective human perception.

Ultimately I am just trying to point out that what is termed as "emergent properties" are just a collection of atomic particles obeying the laws of science.  How they came into being does not give them any superior properties to other atomic particles.  The fact that termites were responsible for building a mound with holes in it does not give the mound any special qualities that can't be achieved by other mounds of material.  So to try to explain conscious awareness as an emergent property of basic atomic elements will not work if it is not possible for basic material elements to achieve conscious awareness.

[jeremyp]

To which the believer replies "God didn't make any paths.

To which the staunch atheist replies "you said God created everything".

The paths were created by man.

To which the staunch atheist replies "God created man, and if he (God) is omniscient, he would know that the Man he designed would try to create impossibly narrow paths."

You see if the God that Christians claim exists actually does exist, he is responsible for everything by virtue of his omni- powers.

[jeremyp]

I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.

How do you know?

[Alan Burns]

How do you know?

Because I am a spiritual being, not a biological robot.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The meaning word "complex" is a product of human perception.  We perceive some things as complex because we can recognise some form of functionality or interactivity, but this recognition is entirely the product of subjective human perception.

Nope. They're "complex" in the sense that they're systems - various properties of the components working together to create new phenomena that the components individually do not exhibit. Whether we're there to "interpret" these systems makes not a blind bit of difference to the fact of their existence.   

Ultimately I am just trying to point out that what is termed as "emergent properties" are just a collection of atomic particles obeying the laws of science.

No. They are that, but they're not "just" that. See above.

How they came into being does not give them any superior properties to other atomic particles.

Different rather than "superior", and yes it does. A termite mound has different functional properties from the termites, mud and spit that made it.

The fact that termites were responsible for building a mound with holes in it does not give the mound any special qualities that can't be achieved by other mounds of material.

Of course it does. "Mounds of material" don't just self-assemble as functioning air ventilation systems.

So...

Your premise has failed (see above), so so has the "so" here...

...to try to explain conscious awareness as an emergent property of basic atomic elements will not work if it is not possible for basic material elements to achieve conscious awareness.

Your failure to grasp what emergence entails is remarkable for its obtuseness and wilful ignorance of the subject. I've already recommended to you a good book (albeit not "the" good book in your terms) on the subject so why not read it before attempting to critique the subject again?

[Gordon]

Because I am a spiritual being, not a biological robot.

How do you know that you aren't a biological robot?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

How do you know that you aren't a biological robot?

He doesn't - that's just the way it "feels" to him so he has to construct an entire set of asserted claims to provide a rationale for it. 

[torridon]

Because I am a spiritual being, not a biological robot.

Actually I've got you down as a biological robot, one that is under the delusion that it is a spiritual being.  That makes sense I think, it would account for the predictable nature of your posts.

Joking aside, have a look at this robot :

https://youtu.be/W0_DPi0PmF0

Extrapolating current trends I think it will not be long before robots are so life like they will be indistinguishable from real humans, and we will have to design them differently so we can tell the difference.  And as our artificial intelligence approaches naturally evolved organic intelligence, the whole notion of 'robot' is going to dissolve, it will have outlived its usefulness. We are information beings, the matter from which we are made does not really define us, sooner or later we will upgrade ourselves to more durable materials and the era of organic people that suffer and decay will be over.

[wigginhall]

It's interesting that 'I am a spiritual being' is on a par with 'I am not a spiritual being', or 'I don't know if I am a spiritual being', or 'I don't care'.   I mean, that they are expressions of people's feelings, and have equivalent status.   This is like the old examples, 'I experience God', and 'I don't experience God'.   If one is valid, so is the other.   It gets you exactly nowhere.