The Illusion of Self

[Gordon]

The aim is not to get to the truth of the matter, it is to come up with a narrative that does not involve a designer! Therefore the process is not objective, because it is not distinguishing between circumstances where the gain can come from within the system and where the gain happens because of an external influence.

Seems to me you've already decided the 'truth' involves a 'designer'.

You can demonstrate this I presume: and since you cite objectivity let's have your objective demonstrations of this external 'designer'. No fallacies mind!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Some here do not want to acknowledge the external contribution to the gain of a system because it supposedly creates an infinite regression.

It is more the case that no good reasons have been proposed for 'external contribution'

Observation show that both are possible. One has to ask the question then, why one is always ruled out, even when the analogies used to try and illustrate why it should be ruled out show why it should be present (#1, #2, #9, #20 in response to the opening post on this thread for example)

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#150

Seems to me you've already decided the 'truth' involves a 'designer'.

That is my conclusion based on the evidence, including observational evidence.

You can demonstrate this I presume: and since you cite objectivity let's have your objective demonstrations of this external 'designer'. No fallacies mind!

Before proceeding, I need to ascertain one thing. Are you happy for all of the charges of fallacies that are normally cited, to be applied in a similar way to the things human beings design and make? It's an important question because of something Sriram illustrated brilliantly in his #536 on the Karma thread

Ok...imagine a situation where robots had sensory perceptions (cameras and sensors) with which they could sense only other metallic/plastic objects. They cannot sense biological organisms at all.  So...in their world they have only other robots, cars and things like that. No humans, animals etc....though all these organisms exist all around them.

These robots find from their fossil records that cars, computers, planes and robots had evolved from simpler systems. Because they cannot sense humans, they believe that the evolution of all these robots and cars and computers and planes happened automatically due to random metallic variation and environmental pressures. Why did robots become more complex and more intelligent? Emergent Property. Nothing else. They will cite many cases  of complex robots from different parts of the globe that have evolved from simpler ones. That is just the way it happens!

If they could only sense biological humans, they would realize that all their supposed evolution due to random variation was actually driven by  intelligent intervention. There is nothing random about it. All emergent properties were calculated interventions by humans and all complexity is their doing.

in short, whatever conclusion was arrived at would be wrong.

[Gordon]

Before proceeding, I need to ascertain one thing. Are you happy for all of the charges of fallacies that are normally cited, to be applied in a similar way to the things human beings design and make?

Good heavens man: fallacies don't apply to manufactured objects - they are a critique of an argument.

It's an important question because of something Sriram illustrated brilliantly in his #536 on the Karma threadin short, whatever conclusion was arrived at would be wrong.

Sriram illustrated only that he too is inclined towards fallacies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

Except you kind of gave the game away in your #122 when you said this:

“That's emergence - and when you look for it it's pretty much everywhere you look in nature as well as in man-made environments. Single stupid components consistently following a relatively small number of basic rules will produce much more complex emergent phenomena with no need at all for a designer to make it so.”

Hence my quintessential objection. The aim is not to get to the truth of the matter, it is to come up with a narrative that does not involve a designer!

Oh dear. Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Of course it’s not to “come up with a narrative that does not involve a designer” at all. Rather it’s just the observation that emergence operates perfectly well without a designer. That’s the point of it – more complex phenomena emerge from the interactions of their simpler constituent components.

Would you say that the statement, “childbirth occurs naturally with no need at all for storks to fly through windows” is an attempt to come up with a narrative that does not involve storks, or merely a reflection of the facts?

Therefore…

“Therefore”? You can’t have a therefore when you’ve just careered off the rails again. Anyways... 

…the process is not objective, because it is not distinguishing between circumstances where the gain can come from within the system and where the gain happens because of an external influence.

Yes it is. Complexity observably emerges from the interactions of simpler constituent parts provided those constituent parts follow some basic rules. There are countless examples of it when there’s no ”external influence” at all, as you'd know if you'd read any of the literature.   

I have no problem with emergence in non-adaptive systems. I've given several examples in the past to support it. Neither do I have a problem with emergence in adaptive systems, so absolutely I would find it fascinating to study.

However...

I’m sure the communities of people working in this field across their various disciplines will be delighted to hear it.

One key property of an adaptive system is that life is already present.

Nope. Not all adaptive systems involve life at all – life is just one vehicle for the phenomenon.

All the analogies/examples using living organisms show this. Your SIMS reference in your #106 is software written by human beings so any emergence that is possible is ultimately because of what human beings have done. The opening post uses an analogy of technology ultimately created by human beings! So if an adaptive system is being claimed for life being caused from organic and/or inorganic matter coming together (or specifically on this thread, 'self' from 'non-self'), the reasoning is circular, whilst a non-adaptive system stays that way.

You really don’t have the first clue about this do you. Look, I’ve suggested to you several times now a book that would help you not make such a chump of yourself in future if you read it. If you don’t like that one, others are available. Life itself is likely to an emergent property of non-living components, and whether or not software is written by people has absolutely nothing to do with the fact of the phenomenon under discussion.

The fact is that – for both man-made and for non man-made examples – the emergence of complex adaptive systems observably happens. 

You’re twisting in the wind about this because you think it’s another nail in the coffin of some superstitious beliefs you happen to think are true. Whether it is or not though, you don’t get just to misrepresent entirely the phenomenon in the hope that it’ll make the problem go away – it won’t.

Seriously – do yourself a favour and try some reading if you want to avoid shooting yourself in the foot again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

Observation show that both are possible. One has to ask the question then, why one is always ruled out, even when the analogies used to try and illustrate why it should be ruled out show why it should be present (#1, #2, #9, #20 in response to the opening post on this thread for example)

Occam’s razor.

Why do you always rule out stork theory when discussing childbirth? After all, both are "possible".

[Gordon]

Why do you always rule out stork theory when discussing childbirth?

I'm for it - saw it happening too at the beginning of a documentary about circus animals. The documentary is called 'Dumbo', and it is very colourful. It is undeniably true that storks deliver babies - here is the evidence, so you can see for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dODSHuvuoTM

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

I'm for it - saw it happening too at the beginning of a documentary about circus animals. The documentary is called 'Dumbo', and it is very colourful. It is undeniably true that storks deliver babies - here is the evidence, so you can see for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dODSHuvuoTM

Proof positive then - I'm a convert!

[SusanDoris]

#152 SotS
... my conclusion based on the evidence, including observational evidence.

If you have observed something (which has led to your conclusion), then it should be observable to others too. Can you give an example or two?

[torridon]

Hence my quintessential objection. The aim is not to get to the truth of the matter, it is to come up with a narrative that does not involve a designer!

I would turn that round and aim it right back at yer.  It is the cry of 'designer' that is used as cheap way of avoiding trying to understand things.  It is a cop out in my book.  If we find some or other phenomenon hard to understand, it is easy to just say some superior 'being' higher up the complexity ladder must have done it, whilst quietly neglecting any rationale of where that higher being came from and how it got some powers that we can't be bothered to figure out for ourselves. 'Designer' is a category fail; it is an abdication of our willingness and capacity to investigate and think things through.  It is people claiming 'designer' that do not want to get to the truth of the matter.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just out of interest, do you even understand why personal incredulity is a very bad argument for anything?

My personal incredulity is certainly not a proof, but it is an indication that something may not be possible.  And my conclusions are based on much more than mere personal incredulity.

I could argue that much of your belief is based on your personal optimism on what can be achieved by "emergence".

[Sebastian Toe]

My personal incredulity is certainly not a proof, but it is an indication that something may not be possible.  And my conclusions are based on much more than mere personal incredulity.

Then my personal incredulity indicates that souls, as described by you, may not be possible.
And my conclusions are based on much more than mere personal incredulity.

Snap.

[torridon]

My personal incredulity is certainly not a proof, but it is an indication that something may not be possible.  And my conclusions are based on much more than mere personal incredulity.

I could argue that much of your belief is based on your personal optimism on what can be achieved by "emergence".

Personal optimism is not an argument and neither is personal incredulity.  Personal incredulity is not a justification for failing to follow the evidence.  Personal incredulity is an indication of how much work we need to do to bring ourselves up to speed. Personally, I find it incredible that time runs at a different speed on orbiting satellites but I do not use my personal incredulity as a basis to become a general relativity denier;  rather I recognise that that is what the evidence suggests, so I need to come up to speed with my thinking.  Much of what we have discovered through research is counterintuitive at first and we have to work to shake off the naive legacy thinking that is our inheritance from earlier times.  'Personal incredulity' is not an argument, it is an attitude problem, it is a case of head in the sand and we can all do better than that,

[Alan Burns]

In my younger days I used to own/ride horses and I recall that one day I was riding on the moor at Mugdock (just outside Glasgow) on a well behaved horse that was spooked by a sudden clap of thunder & lightning and (as horses do when frightened) it bolted with me on top - there is no doubt in my mind that the horse 'perceived' the event since it took a couple of hundred yards at a flat-out gallop before I was able to pull-up.

What you quote are examples of animal instincts which are common to both humans and other animals.  The evidence for conscious awareness lies in such examples as contemplating the beauty of a sunset, listening to a symphony or savouring the bouquet of a fine wine.  Also there is our ability to interpret meaning from what our senses detect, rather than just react.  And likewise the evidence for our free will lies in our ability override our basic animal instincts if we so wish to.  These are the unique attributes which set us apart from other animals and provide evidence for the human soul.

[torridon]

What you quote are examples of animal instincts which are common to both humans and other animals.  The evidence for conscious awareness lies in such examples as contemplating the beauty of a sunset, listening to a symphony or savouring the bouquet of a fine wine.  Also there is our ability to interpret meaning from what our senses detect, rather than just react.  And likewise the evidence for our free will lies in our ability override our basic animal instincts if we so wish to.  These are the unique attributes which set us apart from other animals and provide evidence for the human soul.

The aspects you mention are evidence of higher cognitive abilities such as agency.  This is not the same thing as evidence for a soul, this is merely your rationalisation in favour of your religious beliefs.  A 'soul' implies vastly more than these cognitive functions, so the evidence for it would need to be vast also.  And there isn't any, currently.

[ekim]

These are the unique attributes which set us apart from other animals and provide evidence for the human soul.

A 'soul' implies vastly more than these cognitive functions

I think at least one of you needs to define what you understand by 'soul' otherwise each of you will be arguing for and against your own personal concept which is not fully shared with the other.

[torridon]

I think at least one of you needs to define what you understand by 'soul' otherwise each of you will be arguing for and against your own personal concept which is not fully shared with the other.

Talking to Alan's idea, which I presume includes - a god-given, immaterial, immortal self aware being that is temporarily resident within and interacting with a human body.  I don't use the term myself except to contrast it with the related notion of 'self'.

[Gordon]

The evidence for conscious awareness lies in such examples as contemplating the beauty of a sunset, listening to a symphony or savouring the bouquet of a fine wine.  Also there is our ability to interpret meaning from what our senses detect, rather than just react.

All that seems like our biology just doing what it is capable of.

And likewise the evidence for our free will lies in our ability override our basic animal instincts if we so wish to.

Nope: try using you 'free will' to decide to stop breathing.

These are the unique attributes which set us apart from other animals and provide evidence for the human soul.

Don't think so: your personal incredulity is evidence only of your fevered attempts to rationalise the irrational.

[Sebastian Toe]

What you quote are examples of animal instincts which are common to both humans and other animals.  The evidence for conscious awareness lies in such examples as contemplating the beauty of a sunset, listening to a symphony or savouring the bouquet of a fine wine. 

..and self awareness surely?

[Sebastian Toe]

  And likewise the evidence for our free will lies in our ability override our basic animal instincts if we so wish to.  These are the unique attributes which set us apart from other animals and provide evidence for the human soul.

Do you have some examples of these basic instincts?
Is it just the basic ones which fit your theory?

[ekim]

Talking to Alan's idea, which I presume includes - a god-given, immaterial, immortal self aware being that is temporarily resident within and interacting with a human body.  I don't use the term myself except to contrast it with the related notion of 'self'.

Perhaps Alan can confirm your assumptions and whether he distinguishes it with 'self'.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

You’re twisting in the wind about this because you think it’s another nail in the coffin of some superstitious beliefs you happen to think are true. Whether it is or not though, you don’t get just to misrepresent entirely the phenomenon in the hope that it’ll make the problem go away – it won’t.

Your response really does lay bare your prejudices for all to see.

1.   You’ve brought up my religious beliefs when I have not mentioned them. Furthermore, you’ve made assumptions about them when you don’t even know what I believe and why! If religious belief is a factor then what is the factor for Jack Knave (who is not a theist), who was also challenging aspects of what is claimed on the Karma thread?

2.   By bringing up religious beliefs when they have not been mentioned, it shows that your approach is not one based on getting to the truth of the matter. It is to avoid anything that could potentially lead to a religious explanation for a cause.

3.   You evaded all of the issues raised in my previous post. No surprise there. Anyone reading your post would think I am against the notion of emergence!

Therefore, let me explain again what the quintessential problem is.

On the Karma thread, the poster Enki asked a key question: what makes one system adaptive and another non-adaptive where emergence is concerned? The question was asked three times (#546, #560, #581). Each time you responded (#552, #562, #584) you evaded the question by describing what adaptive and non-adaptive systems are. So let the examples and analogies illustrate!

In an adaptive system, that which causes it to be adaptive is already present. In all of the examples where living organisms are involved, life is already present. In your SIMS analogy, human beings were responsible for the game, so the simulated life in that game (a characteristic for the adaptive system from which any emergence occurs) has its ultimate cause as a result of the computer coding of human beings! So guess what? Your own analogy ends up illustrating why an external cause is needed and suggests possible characteristics of that cause!!

Despite all this, you continue to peddle the hypothesis that an adaptive system can result in organic and/or inorganic matter coming together for life to emerge when all of the analogies and examples show that life is present in order for it to be adaptive.

[Walter]

Your response really does lay bare your prejudices for all to see.

1.   You’ve brought up my religious beliefs when I have not mentioned them. Furthermore, you’ve made assumptions about them when you don’t even know what I believe and why! If religious belief is a factor then what is the factor for Jack Knave (who is not a theist), who was also challenging aspects of what is claimed on the Karma thread?

2.   By bringing up religious beliefs when they have not been mentioned, it shows that your approach is not one based on getting to the truth of the matter. It is to avoid anything that could potentially lead to a religious explanation for a cause.

3.   You evaded all of the issues raised in my previous post. No surprise there. Anyone reading your post would think I am against the notion of emergence!

Therefore, let me explain again what the quintessential problem is.

On the Karma thread, the poster Enki asked a key question: what makes one system adaptive and another non-adaptive where emergence is concerned? The question was asked three times (#546, #560, #581). Each time you responded (#552, #562, #584) you evaded the question by describing what adaptive and non-adaptive systems are. So let the examples and analogies illustrate!

In an adaptive system, that which causes it to be adaptive is already present. In all of the examples where living organisms are involved, life is already present. In your SIMS analogy, human beings were responsible for the game, so the simulated life in that game (a characteristic for the adaptive system from which any emergence occurs) has its ultimate cause as a result of the computer coding of human beings! So guess what? Your own analogy ends up illustrating why an external cause is needed and suggests possible characteristics of that cause!!

Despite all this, you continue to peddle the hypothesis that an adaptive system can result in organic and/or inorganic matter coming together for life to emerge when all of the analogies and examples show that life is present in order for it to be adaptive.

Sword, it is so simple , just show the evidence to support your claims . That's it , nothing more , it will all be over there will be nothing left to argue .
right now its just the same old same old and I'm finding it so bloody tedious to the point of mental frustration.
So please, please just do it , thank you.

[Alan Burns]

How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is given!
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of His heaven.
No ear may hear His coming,
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him still,
The dear Christ enters in.

Just listened to Dylan's Christmas Album - Christmas in the heart

For the first time I was struck by these profound words from the last verse of the last song on his album.  In just these few words, so much is said.

[Walter]

How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is given!
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of His heaven.
No ear may hear His coming,
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him still,
The dear Christ enters in.

Just listened to Dylan's Christmas Album - Christmas in the heart

For the first time I was struck by these profound words from the last verse of the last song on his album.  In just these few words, so much is said.

you're right, it shows how strangely some people think . very odd!