Universalism

[Shaker]

The reason I persist is because whatever is offered as a "correction" is in essence just an alternative opinion.

No; it isn't just somebody else's opinion that you throw out personal conviction as established fact; it isn't just somebody else's opinion that you commit one logical fallacy after another (that is to say, deploy invalid logic); these are facts. Trying to claim parity here is to place you firmly in a post-truth, totally relativistic universe where every opinion is precisely and exactly equal to any - and every - other, across the board.

Guess what? That's not the universe we're in, even if it's the one you seem to want to inhabit.

regarding free will I maintain that "I" am in control of me, not the uncontrolled deterministic forces of nature.

That, of course, definitely is merely opinion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The reason I persist is because whatever is offered as a "correction" is in essence just an alternative opinion.

You can have "alternative opinions" as much as you like. What you can't have though is alternative facts. When you attempt an argument that's logically false then it's a fact that it's logically false, and no amount of personal opinion on the matter will change that.

This is what you're attempting here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH4XCGaSGfk

[Shaker]

What you can't have though is alternative facts.

I suppose that we grudgingly have to thank a certain Ms. Conway for a phrase which we're going to be hearing a lot more of from now on.

[wigginhall]

I see that AB cites the Leibniz mill; well, this is the classic statement of incredulity about consciousness and perception.  I suppose AB is right, incredulity hasn't really moved on.  Meanwhile, neuroscientists and researchers into cognition, are, well, actually studying perception, bit of a shock, eh?

[Alan Burns]

I see that AB cites the Leibniz mill; well, this is the classic statement of incredulity about consciousness and perception.  I suppose AB is right, incredulity hasn't really moved on.  Meanwhile, neuroscientists and researchers into cognition, are, well, actually studying perception, bit of a shock, eh?

But many fail to realise the difference between perception and reaction.   You can't define perception in terms of observed physical reactions.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You can have "alternative opinions" as much as you like. What you can't have though is alternative facts. When you attempt an argument that's logically false then it's a fact that it's logically false, and no amount of personal opinion on the matter will change that.

Just as an example, I am often told that I do not have free will because investigations show that an apparent act of free will has its origins in brain activity which occur before we are consciously aware of the action.  I do not dispute this fact, but I do dispute that it can be used to prove that free will does not exist.  What I maintain is that the human soul has the power to do whatever is needed to induce an act of free will, because it is not a physical entity and is not restricted to compliance with laws of science which apply to our physical universe.  It can interact with our physical universe, but it is not restricted by its observed physical laws.  So my perception of reality indicates that this interaction does take place, even if it appears to contradict what we deem to be logically impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But many fail to realise the difference between perception and reaction.   You can't define perception in terms of observed physical reactions.

Perception is "reaction" Alan. Deal with it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Perception is "reaction" Alan. Deal with it.

No
Perception is awareness of reaction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just as an example, I am often told that I do not have free will because investigations show that an apparent act of free will has its origins in brain activity which occur before we are consciously aware of the action.  I do not dispute this fact, but I do dispute that it can be used to prove that free will does not exist.  What I maintain is that the human soul has the power to do whatever is needed to induce an act of free will, because it is not a physical entity and is not restricted to compliance with laws of science which apply to our physical universe.  It can interact with our physical universe, but it is not restricted by its observed physical laws.  So my perception of reality indicates that this interaction does take place, even if it appears to contradict what we deem to be logically impossible.

Then you're locked into some very bad circular reasoning. If you want to argue for "free" will even though there's no evidence for it, that's up to you and, having done so, you're also free to populate the space with a little man at the controls you call "soul" if you like. What you can't do in the same breath though is posit "soul" as your explanation for free will, because that's circular.

What you'd have to do is to demonstrate either "free" will as you define it, or "soul" - you can't have both though when each provides the rationale for the other. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Perception is awareness of reaction.

Nope. Sense organs receive wavelength data that's passed to the brain, neurons "react" by firing and collectively creating models we call "awareness" or "perception". If you want to open up a whole separate category of experience you call "perception" then you'll have to demonstrate it without recourse to the little man at the controls you're trying to argue for in the first place.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,
Then you're locked into some very bad circular reasoning. If you want to argue for "free" will even though there's no evidence for it .......

There may be no physical evidence to support the concept of free will, but there is evidence in my perception of reality, which indicates that every key I physically type is induced by the conscious awareness of the human soul which is "me".

[wigginhall]

But many fail to realise the difference between perception and reaction.   You can't define perception in terms of observed physical reactions.

Well, the Leibniz mill is one of the classic arguments against materialism, although as I said, it strikes me as a statement of incredulity.   It refers to a water-mill, and Leibniz argues that if you could walk around inside the brain as inside a mill, you would find levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), but you would not find perception or consciousness.

However, if you could walk  around inside a molecule of water, you could watch the particles interacting (hydrogen and oxygen), but would you find the properties of water?   I doubt it.  Or walk around inside a lap-top - can you see the software?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Nope. Sense organs receive wavelength data that's passed to the brain, neurons "react" by firing and collectively creating models we call "awareness" or "perception". If you want to open up a whole separate category of experience you call "perception" then you'll have to demonstrate it without recourse to the little man at the controls you're trying to argue for in the first place.

Neuron activity may well represent a thought in the same way that ink on a piece of paper represents the meaning of a word.  But you do not discover the meaning of the word by minute examination of the ink particles and paper molecules.  The meaning is derived from external perception, not from internal examination.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There may be no physical evidence to support the concept of free will, but there is evidence in my perception of reality, which indicates that every key I physically type is induced by the conscious awareness of the human soul which is "me".

Your "perception of reality" is fine for a story you want to tell yourself, even though there's no evidence for it (indeed the evidence we do have contradicts it). What that doesn't give you though is a claim to any sort of objective reality, so proselytising or evangelising is a non-starter - just as it would be if I wanted to assert m belief in leprechauns to be true for you too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Neuron activity may well represent a thought in the same way that ink on a piece of paper represents the meaning of a word.  But you do not discover the meaning of the word by minute examination of the ink particles and paper molecules.  The meaning is derived from external perception, not from internal examination.

Discovering a the meaning of a word is an emergent property of the physical stuff of which we're made. I've pointed you toward a very good book about this several times now - why not read it?

[Alan Burns]

Well, the Leibniz mill is one of the classic arguments against materialism, although as I said, it strikes me as a statement of incredulity.   It refers to a water-mill, and Leibniz argues that if you could walk around inside the brain as inside a mill, you would find levers, and cogs and wheels, levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), but you would not find perception or consciousness.

However, if you could walk  around inside a molecule of water, you could watch the particles interacting (hydrogen and oxygen), but would you find the properties of water?   I doubt it.  Or walk around inside a lap-top - can you see the software?

A bad analogy, because lap tops do not have the property of self awareness (neither does water), and all the internal levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), merely explain how the laptop produces the results, or why water behaves as it does.

[Outrider]

Neuron activity may well represent a thought in the same way that ink on a piece of paper represents the meaning of a word.  But you do not discover the meaning of the word by minute examination of the ink particles and paper molecules.  The meaning is derived from external perception, not from internal examination.

Or it might be more akin to writing the word on the page - what's left isn't the act of imparting meaning, any more than the record of the neural activity is the act of thinking, but they are the traces we have from which to deduce what we can.

O.

[Outrider]

A bad analogy, because lap tops do not have the property of self awareness (neither does water), and all the internal levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), merely explain how the laptop produces the results, or why water behaves as it does.

Functionally, though, the various component parts of the human brain don't behave any differently to the component parts of the bird brain, or the crocodile or octopus... are they self aware? Are they 'as' self-aware as humans? Are all humans self-aware?

How do you know that lap-tops aren't self-aware, and just don't have the capacity yet to comprehend that we're self-aware agents out here interacting with them?

O.

[torridon]

A bad analogy, because lap tops do not have the property of self awareness ....

Human infants are not self-aware whilst adult dolphins, elephants and chimpanzees are. So I guess that means that infants don't have souls whereas adult chimps do.

[wigginhall]

A bad analogy, because lap tops do not have the property of self awareness (neither does water), and all the internal levers, and cogs and wheels, (or the equivalent), merely explain how the laptop produces the results, or why water behaves as it does.

It's not an analogy about awareness, but emergence.   I'm sure you are aware that analogies are not 100% parallel, if they were, they wouldn't be analogies!

[Alan Burns]

It's not an analogy about awareness, but emergence.   I'm sure you are aware that analogies are not 100% parallel, if they were, they wouldn't be analogies!

But the emergent properties of the lap top are fully understood by human scientific knowledge.  You cannot compare this to awareness or perception because there is no scientific definition for how they work.  You can't just assume emergence for something we can't define in physical terms.

[Alan Burns]

Human infants are not self-aware whilst adult dolphins, elephants and chimpanzees are. So I guess that means that infants don't have souls whereas adult chimps do.

The animals you describe do not show any ability to "will" themselves against instinct or learnt experience as humans can.  And the mind-soul interaction of an infant can't work until the physical engine of the human brain can attain sufficient functionality to interact with the soul.

[Shaker]

But the emergent properties of the lap top are fully understood by human scientific knowledge.  You cannot compare this to awareness or perception because there is no scientific definition for how they work.  You can't just assume emergence for something we can't define in physical terms.

This is the argument from ignorance, then - we don't understand X at the the moment, therefore in place of X we simply plug in 'soul' and consider that an explanation.

[torridon]

The animals you describe do not show any ability to "will" themselves against instinct or learnt experience as humans can. 

Which is agency, and there is nothing magic about agency.  It means that humans have greater cognitive capacities to consider possible future scenarios and perhaps choose a course of action different from the more ancient instinctive action. Agency is not some either/or ability, it admits of degrees and it varies from species to species and from individual to individual.

And the mind-soul interaction of an infant can't work until the physical engine of the human brain can attain sufficient functionality to interact with the soul.

When does an infant get its soul ? And how is it attached ? How does it interact ?

[Alan Burns]

This is the argument from ignorance, then - we don't understand X at the the moment, therefore in place of X we simply plug in 'soul' and consider that an explanation.

What I am saying is that you can't use "emergence" to prove the human soul does not exist, because any emergence is entirely dependent on the physical properties of the material from which the emergence comes.  So unless you can define Conscious Awareness in physical terms, you can't just assume that it is an emergent property.

Can you not come to terms with the fact that it is not possible to define conscious awareness as a physical property?  Any entity of awareness needs to perceive, not just react to, the content of many brain cells, and as I have already indicated, perception is achieved from outside, not within.