AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Gordon]

Well give us the details of your claim...
The truth is you cannot. You do not know the faith of a Christian from a personal view or from the biblical view to be able to support the statement you have made. The above is basic repeat of accusations from other men which in themselves show no evidence. It is like saying someone committed murder but having no evidence at all, forensic or otherwise to support such a claim.

So if you want to say the above about what I have said then provide the evidence. Go through my post detail by detail and show that there is evidence for your answer.  Otherwise it is an accusation void of any and all evidence.

The post you are commenting on involved me pointing out fallacies in your own post, which are self-evident, as is the case in the post of yours I'm quoting now.

I made no claims regarding Christianity: that would be your department.

[Sassy]

The post you are commenting on involved me pointing out fallacies in your own post, which are self-evident, as is the case in the post of yours I'm quoting now.

I made no claims regarding Christianity: that would be your department.

I asked for evidence you have to point out the fallacies and provide proof. You did not point out any fallacy you made a blank statement without any references or any evidence./
Nothing is self-evident about your post. You have been caught otu. EXPLAIN FROM ORIGINAL POST OF MINE EACH FALLACY GIVING EVIDENCE.

Now whose belief really requires the faith and has no evidence. Do not use statements you cannot support with evidence.

[Gordon]

I asked for evidence you have to point out the fallacies and provide proof. You did not point out any fallacy you made a blank statement without any references or any evidence./
Nothing is self-evident about your post. You have been caught otu. EXPLAIN FROM ORIGINAL POST OF MINE EACH FALLACY GIVING EVIDENCE.

Now whose belief really requires the faith and has no evidence. Do not use statements you cannot support with evidence.

Suggest you learn about fallacies first and then re-read your own posts: the ones I mentioned are quite obvious.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gabriella,

Glad you've having a great time (though I wouldn't generally recommend actually stopping when you're flagged down there...)

I'm just passing through here, but briefly:

The trouble with NPF being asserted because someone thinks a statement that hasn't been made by a theist is being implied, is that the implied part is no different from guessing, unless the theist subsequently confirms that they were trying to imply a true for everyone argument because their claim can't be disproved.

No, it's stronger than that. The NPF is sometimes used to answer the question, "what's your evidence for "God"?". That is, in these cases the person saying, "you can't disprove it" is so far as they're concerned providing evidence for their god.

As a separate matter, even if no-one had done that the NPF would still be a bad argument and so shouldn't be attempted regardless of the intent of the person essaying it.

[ekim]

Agreed - the victimisation is a consequence of people feeling entitled to judge someone else and put pressure on them, which happens in social and political situations as well, though that is based on political rather than religious beliefs - for example the vicitimisation of "Scabs" during the UK Miners Strikes in the 1980s.
Agreed. People do employ methods that result in what they regard as a positive experience, which they attribute to spirituality. And those people might feel these positive experiences feel different / better than the experiences provided by TV, alcohol, hobbies or any other coping mechanisms or distraction methods that non-theists employ.

Yes.  In the quotes I provided, it is not just the individual 'self' which forms the barrier but also the collective 'self', no matter whether it has a religious label, philosophical label or social and political label.  Faith is persisting with a method in the hope that it will facilitate a union with something greater than the individual or collective.  If it happens then there is often the risk that the forces of the collective will crucify (in one form or another)that person as a troublesome outsider.

[Alan Burns]

Would you mind awfully showing your logic which makes your statement accurate?

The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness.  For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means.  Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity.   Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information.  Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles.  Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness.  I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.

[Nearly Sane]

The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness.  For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means.  Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity.   Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information.  Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles.  Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness.  I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.

Son what's your method for that?

[Maeght]

The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness.  For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means.  Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity.   Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information.  Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles.  Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness.  I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.

That is your belief and an assertion. Basing a logical deduction on that is not logical.

[wigginhall]

"Information alone cannot generate awareness" - from AB.   How would you know that? 

[Alan Burns]

That is your belief and an assertion. Basing a logical deduction on that is not logical.

The logic is based upon the reality I see, which indicates that perception can't be defined by material properties.  If the logic is flawed, then you are free to point out the flaw and offer an alternative explanation.

[torridon]

"Information alone cannot generate awareness" - from AB.   How would you know that?

Indeed. Arguably, awareness is information flow.

[Alan Burns]

Indeed. Arguably, awareness is information flow.

So does the information flow within a computer generate conscious awareness? 

[Gordon]

The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness.  For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means.  Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity.   Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information.  Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles.  Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness.  I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.

This ramble reads like an example of the fallacy of composition (and others).

[Maeght]

The logic is based upon the reality I see, which indicates that perception can't be defined by material properties.  If the logic is flawed, then you are free to point out the flaw and offer an alternative explanation.

It is based on your beliefs and is an assertion not a fact. Describing it as the reality you see does not change that. To base a logical argument on that is the flaw. I don't need to offer an alternative to point out that your argument is an assertion and a belief.

[wigginhall]

So does the information flow within a computer generate conscious awareness? 

No, all lions are cats, but not all cats are not lions.

[torridon]

The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness.  For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means.  Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity.   Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information.  Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles.  Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness.  I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.

Firstly, conscious experience might be modelled as pure information flow, this might be a way to understand why mental stuff seems immaterial - we can touch trees and tables but you can't touch thoughts and ideas, why, because these things are pure information products. Conscious experience is what information feels like.

Secondly, and I am sure we covered this dozens of times already, the fact that we experience a single unified stream of experience does not mean that at base there is a single experiencer.  Multimodal sensory experience is amalgamated and synchronised into an apparent single stream of experience by subliminal preconscious perception processing;  all this goes on under the hood before we become 'aware' of it; not only that, the 'we' that experiences the stream is itself a construct of this processing.  This much has become apparent from research.

[wigginhall]

There is no requirement for an experiencer.   If I'm walking, is there a walker?  If I'm thinking, is there a thinker?  I don't see why.

[torridon]

So does the information flow within a computer generate conscious awareness? 

Clearly not with the desktop in front of you that is not architected for that purpose.

However with projects such as The Blue Brain Project we are aiming towards just that.  If we can model the information flow within a brain then it should develop consciousness eventually.  There is nothing magic about organic compounds.

[Alan Burns]

There is no requirement for an experiencer.   If I'm walking, is there a walker?  If I'm thinking, is there a thinker?  I don't see why.

But the recognition of the meaning of these words does not exist outside human perception.  Take away our perception and everything just exists without labels.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing magic about organic compounds.

True, because they comprise the same basic atomic particles as any other substance.

[wigginhall]

But the recognition of the meaning of these words does not exist outside human perception.  Take away our perception and everything just exists without labels.

OK, but I'm arguing that there is no perceiver.  If there is, where is it?

[torridon]

True, because they comprise the same basic atomic particles as any other substance.

Yes, we are all ultimately made of dead stuff.  Conscious experience is essentially patterns in information flow and there is nothing special about the organic materials that make up you or me in terms of their ability to host information.  If we can swap our carbon compounds for more durable silicon compounds in the same arrangement then they should also be able to host the same forms of information flow.

[torridon]

But the recognition of the meaning of these words does not exist outside human perception.  Take away our perception and everything just exists without labels.

All higher animals have cognitive perception, not just humans. When an antelope sees a lion creeping up on it and recognises it as something to fear, that is cognitive perception, exactly the same as would happen in me.  Recognising the meaning in written words is just a more advanced form of cognitive perception.

[Alan Burns]

OK, but I'm arguing that there is no perceiver.  If there is, where is it?

I must put it to you that nothing can be perceived outside the human soul, because I would define the human soul as "that which perceives".

[Alan Burns]

All higher animals have cognitive perception, not just humans. When an antelope sees a lion creeping up on it and recognises it as something to fear, that is cognitive perception, exactly the same as would happen in me.  Recognising the meaning in written words is just a more advanced form of cognitive perception.

But in these examples, you still fail to recognise the difference between perception and reaction.