Karma

[Jack Knave]

JK,

Not really, no. Here’s Steven Johnson on what it actually means with reference to cities:

"[Cities] are patterns of human movement and decision-making that have been etched into the texture of city blocks, patterns that are then fed back to the residents themselves, altering their subsequent decisions. ... A city is a kind of pattern-amplifying machine: its neighbourhoods are a way of measuring and expressing the repeated behavior of larger collectives — capturing information about group behavior, and sharing that information with the group.  Because those patterns are fed back to the community, small shifts in behavior can quickly escalate into larger movements: upscale shops dominate the main boulevards, while the working class remains clustered invisibly in the alleys and side streets; the artists live on the Left Bank, the investment bankers in the Eighth Arrondissement. You don't need regulations and city planners deliberately creating these structures. All you need are thousands of individuals and a few simple rules of interaction."  (Emergence, pp. 40-41)

The fact of artists’ quarters and banking districts isn’t an “inherent potentiality” in people that’s been “activated” – rather it’s a new pattern and level of complexity that has emerged from the behaviours of citizens who didn’t start out to create these phenomena at all.

Read the book!

How does that contradict what I said. This Johnson guys is just too stupid to see the energy being put in by the ideas of the individuals. If they don't have the ideas in the first place nothing gets built. Some cultures in the past have just got stuck and not developed and so just reiterated that they have done for centuries. Others have grown in their technical know how. Homo Erectus effectively only knapped flint for 2 million years. We have what we have in say 20,000 years. A threshold and 'energy' has to go into the system to produce something and that system has to have the potential in the first place because ex nihilo. The book sounds like kindergarten stuff.

   

Why is that a “re-“definition, other than that it happens to conflict with your personal opinion on the matter?

As oppose your personal opinion. It is only relative - your word against mine. So what you are saying is that you think you're a robot. A robot that thinks but by definition robots don't think. I think you have a problem - I wonder if you can't think that one through? 

[Jack Knave]

Vlad,

That's a non sequitur. The evidence points to consciousness as an adaptive emergent system, so that's the working hypothesis. We know that "machine like computers" can already exhibit adaptive emergent properties - Amazon's recommendations software for example does that.

These two position are congruent, not contradictory.

But that is not a definition just an attribute of consciousness. Saying someone is a footballer says nothing about what it means to be human. We are still awaiting a definition from you lot.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Spoof,

Really. Let's see shall we?

No need - here they are (all from Wiki):

...

So when I say things like, “no, what I actually think is that the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing” why then do you relentlessly respond with a critique of your private version of materialism I’ve explicitly told you I don’t hold to?

The clue is in that last paragraph bluehillside...your use of the word 'guess'

Wikipedia says this about guessing

A guess (or an act of guessing) is a swift conclusion drawn from data directly at hand, and held as probable or tentative, while the person making the guess (the guesser) admittedly lacks material for a greater degree of certainty.

and

Guessing may combine elements of deduction, induction, abduction, and the purely random selection of one choice from a set of options

I wonder how many of the Christians who post here regularly feel that their conclusions, arrived at by induction are taken seriously.

Furthermore, what you said makes a mockery of the oft-repeated claim that it is those of religious belief who are wanting certainty. It is clear from your post that you take the approach you do precisely because it guarantees the kind of certainty you require.

Going back to your #604 on this thread, you said this about an adaptive system:

No – it’s deduced using the strong evidence that points in that direction, just as gravity making apples fall and germs causing diseases is deduced for the same basic reason.

Your conclusion based on the strong evidence is arrived at via induction, yet the examples you cite are deductions because gravity is not in doubt and neither is the existence and functionality of germs. Someone will no doubt have a name for what it is when one assumes the conclusion without proof, and uses it to make deductions.

Also from your #604

Look, I can see why you don't like this - removing the need for a top down designer is another nail in the coffin of the ghost in the machine you call "God". You can't though just remain in ignorance of or misrepresent the facts in the hope they'll go away - they really won't.

So your conclusion arrived at via an inductive process has suddenly become fact, on which to make deductions?

Can you now see why it is easy for others to see your claim what I actually think is that the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing is at best inconsistent, at worst not true?

[Jack Knave]

It's tempting to think of vision being a matter of image projection which can be 'seen' by an internal viewer; the problem with that being that is recursive.  An internal see-er that 'sees' the internal image would require it's own internal see-er.  It is intuitive to conceptualise it that way but it must be wrong.

When a penguin looks for its partner on the beach, is there an internal single entity of perception viewing its internal image in the brain  ?

But then what sees the outside world? in the sense of being aware of it ; self conscious, in an act of perception. Just in this simple set up of looking at the physical world needs a see-er. What you say would be true of just things reacting to each other in the way billiard balls react with each other with no awareness of what is actually going on, so avoiding your endless recurrence of a see-er needing a see-er.....

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

How does that contradict what I said. This Johnson guys is just too stupid to see the energy being put in by the ideas of the individuals. If they don't have the ideas in the first place nothing gets built. Some cultures in the past have just got stuck and not developed and so just reiterated that they have done for centuries. Others have grown in their technical know how. Homo Erectus effectively only knapped flint for 2 million years. We have what we have in say 20,000 years. A threshold and 'energy' has to go into the system to produce something and that system has to have the potential in the first place because ex nihilo. The book sounds like kindergarten stuff.

You fundamentally misunderstand what emergence entails, and you underestimate Johnson’s intelligence too. This isn’t about whether something or nothing gets built, but rather it’s about the pattern of the businesses that emerge. Types of business tend to cluster, and they can do so in quite subtle ways without a city planner making it so. Where demand for the goods or services is high (eg Chinese restaurants in a populous city), the clustering is close because the benefit of attracting customers to the area outweighs the disbenefit of proximate competition. Over time, other business too – like specialist food suppliers or transport links – will tend to build around the clusters of alike businesses, creating a positive feedback loop for new Chinese restaurants to come in.

Conversely, when demand is low (eg Chinese restaurants in sparsely populated conurbations, or occasional purchase shops like wine merchants) the clustering will be more disparate because a competitor next door would make either or both uneconomic.

Over time these patterns become embedded – the silk merchants of Florence is a good example – not because of the “ideas of the individuals” but because market forces have dictated the patterns that cause some businesses to fail and others to flourish. It’s not somehow inherent in the nature of Chinese restaurants though that, say, bus stops are positioned close to them.

As oppose your personal opinion. It is only relative - your word against mine.

Only if you think storks vs natural childbirth is your word against mine. Consciousness is a complex system that happens in nature. We have robust models for the emergence of complex systems in nature, and we have no reason to think that consciousness should be treated as if it must be subject to other rules and principles. Therefore emergence provides the working hypothesis pending further and better particulars. If you want to argue against that, the onus is on you to make a case for the exceptionalism.

So what you are saying is that you think you're a robot. A robot that thinks but by definition robots don't think. I think you have a problem - I wonder if you can't think that one through?

More than you have it seems. I wouldn’t use the term “robot”, but I see no inherent reason for material systems not to be capable of self-awareness given enough complexity, and for that complexity to have emerged as it does elsewhere in nature with no top down designer being required.

Other than your personal disdain, what argument do you even think you have to rebut this position?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

The clue is in that last paragraph bluehillside...your use of the word 'guess'

Wikipedia says this about guessing

No, the clue is in my phrase: “…the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing”.

I was describing there my position (nothing to do with definitions in Wiki) rather than Vlad’s straw man version of it.

“A guess (or an act of guessing) is a swift conclusion drawn from data directly at hand, and held as probable or tentative, while the person making the guess (the guesser) admittedly lacks material for a greater degree of certainty.

and

Quote

Guessing may combine elements of deduction, induction, abduction, and the purely random selection of one choice from a set of options
I wonder how many of the Christians who post here regularly feel that their conclusions, arrived at by induction are taken seriously.

No idea – but when they claim certainty about a “true for me too” god on the basis of it they’re sadly lacking in firepower.

Furthermore…

“Furthermore...”? Oh well…

…what you said makes a mockery of the oft-repeated claim that it is those of religious belief who are wanting certainty. It is clear from your post that you take the approach you do precisely because it guarantees the kind of certainty you require.

Completely wrong. If someone wants to assert as a fact for me something he thinks to be true as a matter of personal faith, then the job is all his to build a bridge from possible to probable. I don’t demand certainty at all, but I do demand probable.

Is that so unreasonable? 

Going back to your #604 on this thread, you said this about an adaptive system:

Quote

No – it’s deduced using the strong evidence that points in that direction, just as gravity making apples fall and germs causing diseases is deduced for the same basic reason.

Your conclusion based on the strong evidence is arrived at via induction, yet the examples you cite are deductions because gravity is not in doubt and neither is the existence and functionality of germs. Someone will no doubt have a name for what it is when one assumes the conclusion without proof, and uses it to make deductions.

Of course gravity and germs are in doubt to some extent – how do we know that it isn’t invisible pixies pulling the apples down with really small strings for example? Strong evidence is strong evidence – it’s not certainty though, not least because we have no way to eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown explanation.

You’re a long way out of your depth here old son.

Also from your #604

Look, I can see why you don't like this - removing the need for a top down designer is another nail in the coffin of the ghost in the machine you call "God". You can't though just remain in ignorance of or misrepresent the facts in the hope they'll go away - they really won't.
So your conclusion arrived at via an inductive process has suddenly become fact, on which to make deductions?

You don’t understand the meaning of the word “fact” here. In epistemic terms there can be no strict certainty so even terms like “fact” are conditional – it's the problem of unknown unknowns again.

Can you now see why it is easy for others to see your claim what I actually think is that the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing is at best inconsistent, at worst not true?

No, for the good reason that every effort you’ve made to critique is evidently and demonstrably wrong.

By all means try again though if you have some better arguments to deploy.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

No. The human body is “a large multifunctional system”

It certainly is! can the heart think, can the gut think???

but the countless cells within it are entirely oblivious to the existence of almost all the other cells, yet functioning bodies we have nonetheless.

Are they! And am I about to commit one of those fallacies that are flying around the forum at the moment, it's fallacies all the way down! But can you prove the above quote, the cell in my big toe is not in conversation with the cell in my hair follicles.

Gonnagle.

[Sebastian Toe]

But can you prove the above quote, the cell in my big toe is not in conversation with the cell in my hair follicles.

Do you think that it is?
Can you prove that it is?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Seb,

Do you think that it is?

Yes I think the cells in my big toe are communicating with the cells in my hair follicles.

Can you prove that it is?

Yes but I would have to go all Quantum on yer ass.

Gonnagle.

[Sebastian Toe]

Dear Seb,
 Yes I think the cells in my big toe are communicating with the cells in my hair follicles.
 Yes but I would have to go all Quantum on yer ass.

Gonnagle.

On you go then. I can take it!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Seb,

It's all to do with waves and particles and the fact that we are gods, if we look at something we change it, okay! Have you got it! Then it explain it to me

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

If you have a large multifunctional system and there is no single decision centre, a CEO if you like, then chaos will rein (look at the mess of the EU). That would not be advantageous for survival i.e. for natural selection. Something/someone has to be the final arbiter who says that is what we will do. In a company the CEO is often one of the last people to see all the plans and ideas that the various departments have come up with to facilitate the company's survival and growth. This is similar to our consciousness that gets to ponder on the various choices that are available.

We have traditionally organised power structures in a hierarchical manner; it's intuitive that way.  But it's not the only way to make decisions, there is such as thing as the wisdom of crowds and this is the central insight that we have gleaned by studying insect models.  An ant colony seeking a nest location has no top down authority structure and yet a smart decision emerges out of the interactions of the ants; similarly with bee swarms, it is not a question of the top bee leading the way and the rest just following along. We use these models to study how brains make decisions without having a master neuron as the situation has clear parallels. The idea of a master neuron orchestrating the making of choices is a non-starter - any single neuron is unintelligent, it has no brain of its own with which to direct affairs.  The only way to understand this is by learning how intelligence emerges out of the interaction of billions of neurons.

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside #830

Nice one!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#830

If someone wants to assert as a fact for me something he thinks to be true as a matter of personal faith, then the job is all his to build a bridge from possible to probable. I don’t demand certainty at all, but I do demand probable.

Is that so unreasonable?

No, but it would be nice to see some consistency.

Some of your conclusions on emergence are based on extrapolation. Anyone doings statistics will tell you that extrapolation can be unreliable because behaviour outside the range of observable data cannot be guaranteed. I don't question the examples of emergence that are demonstrable or observable, I question the claim for ones which are not. For those, faith is required. Faith is ok here, but not ok in other circumstances, a bit like your get out for my physics examples with Newton's laws by claiming that the system is non-adaptive.

Of course gravity and germs are in doubt to some extent – how do we know that it isn’t invisible pixies pulling the apples down with really small strings for example? Strong evidence is strong evidence – it’s not certainty though, not least because we have no way to eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown explanation.

The pixies again, lol.

Seriously: If this is your hypothesis, where's your evidence for it and what is the test of falsification?

Look, I can see why you don't like this - removing the need for a top down designer is another nail in the coffin of the ghost in the machine you call "God". You can't though just remain in ignorance of or misrepresent the facts in the hope they'll go away - they really won't.

So your conclusion arrived at via an inductive process has suddenly become fact, on which to make deductions?

You don’t understand the meaning of the word “fact” here. In epistemic terms there can be no strict certainty so even terms like “fact” are conditional – it's the problem of unknown unknowns again.

Which doesn't address my point. You are still using a conclusion (arrived at by an inductive process) to make deductions, whilst calling out those of religious belief who you claim do the same thing!

[Gordon]

Anyone doings statistics will tell you that extrapolation can be unreliable because behaviour outside the range of observable data cannot be guaranteed.

As someone who used to do statistics (a lot, during my career) I'm curious about how you could know about 'behaviour outside the range of observable' at all if you can't observe or model it, and importantly, get the numeric data you need to do statistics with: where the basis for extrapolation will involve the results. You would at least need demonstrable grounds on which to base a hypothesis and then design an investigation to test this, by collecting and analysing the data (the statistical bit) in order to accept or reject your hypothesis.

So, how is this going as regards divine intervention: got a data model yet, and are we going down the parametric or non-parametric route?

 

[Jack Knave]

It might be a state of awareness, yes, but what is a state of awareness made of if you look inside ?  It is about information flow via biochemical reactions at a cellular level.  A brain is an outgrowth of a nervous system and the earliest forms of consciousness probably evolved as a service of interoception providing a monitoring of an creature's overall internal state from information procured by the nervous system.  Through the Cambrian, vertebrates developed external sensing organs allowing for greater perception of threat and food opportunities and these novel sense streams were incorporated into the base interoception service.  That speaks to the base purpose of consciousness - it is awareness of internal state and immediate external environment and all the contents of consciousness are derived from original physical internal and external sensing.

Awareness is not the same as self awareness you need to be clear about what you actually mean and a definition wouldn't come amiss. Self awareness is about an organism being aware of itself as a single agent separate from the rest of the environment it is in.

[Jack Knave]

This looks like an example of the fallacy of composition: you seem to be saying that since sub-atomic particles in the brain don't perceive then brains can't perceive. This is similar to saying that since oxygen isn't wet and hydrogen isn't wet then water can't be wet.

Actually, wetness is a qualia and totally dependant on the subject or entity perceiving the H2O.

[Jack Knave]

I assume the evidence you are talking about is that derived from human scientific investigation.  But within the current scientific knowledge there is no understanding of what defines conscious awareness, or indeed whether it is possible to define it in physical terms.  You presume that conscious awareness is somehow generated as an emergent property of physical brain activity, but this presumption can't be validated until you can demonstrate how conscious awareness can be defined in physical terms.

Whatever defines my conscious awareness also defines my ability to consciously decide which keys to type on this keyboard.

They get it to work by down grading the definition of consciousness - which they have refused to provide.

I'm starting to understand their position. They don't like the fact that they are self aware/conscious etc. (something they plainly see in their own lives, one hopes), because it goes against their materialistic ideology, so they fiddle the parameters to fit their particular picture and turn themselves in to automatons. 

[Jack Knave]

Something that is 'eternal' is just as much as an infinite regression as a set of causes.

Perhaps you should explain that as it seems to be your personal incredulity.

[Jack Knave]

Because it's an infinite regression in terms of time. It's no different from a succession of cause and effects.

Don't follow that either. Eternal just means something is just IS. I would also argue that time doesn't exist.

[Jack Knave]

We don't but since we are then just talking about something that makes no linguistic sense we should admit that. 'Being' and "existence' are temporally expressed concepts. Remove time from the concepts and they become verbal mush. Remember here, I haven't put forward any idea of an eternal being so asking me what it might be like is a trifle odd.

It is a proposition from a philosophical argument. You can't have ex nihilo; there is stuff, as we all can see; ergo something(s) must be eternal.

[Sebastian Toe]

the definition of consciousness - which they have refused to provide.
 

Have you provided yours?

[Jack Knave]

JK,

Absent a “clear definition” of gravity, should we assume that you’re floating around in front of your keyboard?

If there is a definitional problem here, then it’s yours. Consciousness happens in nature, so the assumption is that it plays by the rules of nature. You don’t like this, presumably because you think there’s something special about it that puts it outside those rules. Isn’t it for you then to tell us how you define it such that this exceptionalism becomes reasonable?

"Consciousness happens in nature, so the assumption is that it plays by the rules of  nature." - but this says nothing of the nature of consciousness or what it is or a definition from you lot on it.

I may play by the rules of football but that doesn't make me a football. Playing by rules doesn't define what or who you are, what something is if it is not clear what that something is.

[Jack Knave]

No idea where you get that from. None of us here are working in the field as far as I know, we merely report on where the science is headed, and this is what scientists do, they follow the evidence. We all know correlation is not causation but a correlation suggests a way forward; neural correlates could be all a massive coincidence of course, but scientists don't believe in coincidences - experience shows that apparent coincidences usually indicate a possible underlying causal mechanism to be investigated.

So you lot take it by faith what they (the researchers) say like the theists do with their 'high priests'.....? We know what group think can do and ideologies that become too ingrained. Evolutionary theory had a problem with this with the Modern Synthesis'. And plate tectonics theory was dismissed because of the arrogance of the prevailing views of the scientists of the day.

[Jack Knave]

your advice was very soothing, however I have no idea what 'lapsang souchong' is . thank you.

But you know what a digestive biscuit is and a quick wank are. I hope you washed your hand afterwards before you started typing, others may have to us that thing.