Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

What on earth would make you think that that is "physically impossible"?

So far as I can make it out, your reasoning is something like:

1. Monkeys don't build rockets or write symphonies.

2. Laptops are more limited in their abilities than brains.

3. "Free" will feels free to you, therefore...

... "soul"!

Given that pretty much all of logic and evidence is against you, doesn't this all seem just a little bit, well, thin to you?

I could ask the same in "What on earth would make you think that an emergent property of material reactions can achieve conscious awareness?"
Since conscious awareness can't be defined or reproduced in any way don't you think your own logic is a bit thin?

[Sebastian Toe]

I could ask the same in "What on earth would make you think that an emergent property of material reactions can achieve conscious awareness?"

That is easy.
I think that the emergent property of material reactions that has resulted in myself has achieved conscious awareness.

[Sebastian Toe]

Since conscious awareness can't be defined or reproduced in any way don't you think your own logic is a bit thin?

Since your definitions of spiritual 'stuff' are a bit wooly, punctuated with many dont-knows. Don't you think that your own "logic" is a bit thinner?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I could ask the same in "What on earth would make you think that an emergent property of material reactions can achieve conscious awareness?"

Reason and evidence.

Since conscious awareness can't be defined or reproduced in any way don't you think your own logic is a bit thin?

No, and your premises are questionable too - consciousness is "defined", albeit incompletely and artificial consciousness is already an area of research:   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness

Your personal incredulity moreover tells you nothing about entirely un-defined, un-reasoned, un-evidenced and incoherent conjectures like "soul" etc.

[Outrider]

You seem unable to grasp the concept of the nature of our conscious awareness and what it is capable of.

That's because, as I see it:
a) you've failed to actually explain it at all
b) it makes no logical sense

At any one time we can be aware of many possible choices and many possible reasons for each choice.

Yes. And we can be unaware of further choices and influences, too, but yes.

  Ultimately the decision of which (in any) of these choices is to be implemented is invoked by the property of our conscious awareness to interact with our brain.

OK, here we go:
1 - no, not necessarily
2 - our conscious awareness does not 'interact' with our brains, it's an experience of the activity of our brain
3 - even if that were the case, that's still not any sort of demonstration that the process is 'free' at any point from the inevitable consequences of prior activity

Yes, there is a reason for invoking the choice, and this reason originates in the conscious awareness of our human soul, not in the endless chains of physical cause and effect which trace back to the beginning of time.

Based on what? What reason is there to think that this process involves a 'soul'? What reason is there to think that a 'soul' of any sort exists in the first place?

Regardless of that, even if there were a soul involved, and even if that soul were interacting with the brain somehow, that doesn't resolve the ultimate problem with your concept of free will: each element within it is either deterministically resulting from prior causes, or it's random. Even the 'soul' operating somewhere else, and the interactions between that soul  and the brain, each element of that is either deterministic or random.

How does that add 'free will'? Each element is either free (i.e. random) or it's will (decided based on prior events), but it can't be both.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Reason and evidence.

No, and your premises are questionable too - consciousness is "defined", albeit incompletely and artificial consciousness is already an area of research:   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness

Your personal incredulity moreover tells you nothing about entirely un-defined, un-reasoned, un-evidenced and incoherent conjectures like "soul" etc.

Artificial consciousness is nothing more than an attempt to mimic the external appearance of consciousness.  Consciousness is an internal thing.  To achieve consciousness you need a recipient of information, and this is what is impossible to define in material terms.  Similarly, emergent properties are externally perceived - they have no inner recipient of information.

[Alan Burns]

That's because, as I see it:
a) you've failed to actually explain it at all
b) it makes no logical sense

Yes. And we can be unaware of further choices and influences, too, but yes.

OK, here we go:
1 - no, not necessarily
2 - our conscious awareness does not 'interact' with our brains, it's an experience of the activity of our brain
3 - even if that were the case, that's still not any sort of demonstration that the process is 'free' at any point from the inevitable consequences of prior activity

Based on what? What reason is there to think that this process involves a 'soul'? What reason is there to think that a 'soul' of any sort exists in the first place?

Regardless of that, even if there were a soul involved, and even if that soul were interacting with the brain somehow, that doesn't resolve the ultimate problem with your concept of free will: each element within it is either deterministically resulting from prior causes, or it's random. Even the 'soul' operating somewhere else, and the interactions between that soul  and the brain, each element of that is either deterministic or random.

How does that add 'free will'? Each element is either free (i.e. random) or it's will (decided based on prior events), but it can't be both.

O.

You are still thinking in material terms.

My free will is adequately demonstrated by the fact that I have used my gift of free will in the way God intended - to freely accept Jesus as my Saviour and Redeemer.  Can you seriously believe that this could all be done by my subconscious brain activity?  Seriously?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Artificial consciousness is nothing more than an attempt to mimic the external appearance of consciousness.

It's no such thing. Why are you just making this stuff up?

Consciousness is an internal thing.

Yes, and that's what artificial consciousness models are working towards.

To achieve consciousness you need a recipient if information, and this is what is impossible to define in material terms.

Of course you don't need a separate "recipient" (whatever that means). The mind is the "recipient" - it's of a whole, and we know that because that's what all the evidence tells us despite your seventeenth century notion of a mind/body split. 

Similarly, emergent properties are externally perceived - they have no inner recipient of information.

Wrong again - or more accurately, incoherent again. See above.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you seriously believe that this could all be done by my subconscious brain activity?  Seriously?

First, it's not what people just "believe", it's what the overwhelming body of evidence tells us.

Second, I've explained to you at some length now why fallacious arguments are wrong arguments. Not just "not watertight", but wrong. Flat wrong. Why then have you just attempted again your favourite wrong argument, ie the argument from personal incredulity?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It's no such thing. Why are you just making this stuff up?

Yes, and that's what artificial consciousness models are working towards.

Of course you don't need a separate "recipient" (whatever that means). The mind is the "recipient" - it's of a whole, and we know that because that's what all the evidence tells us despite your seventeenth century notion of a mind/body split. 

Wrong again - or more accurately, incoherent again. See above.

No matter how much you try to wrap it up in technical jargon, any attempt to identify what comprises consciousness in material terms will be based on external observations, which are a totally inadequate means of identifying consciousness.

[Gordon]

You are still thinking in material terms.

There is no option: biology is material and that is what does the thinking.

My free will is adequately demonstrated by the fact that I have used my gift of free will in the way God intended - to freely accept Jesus as my Saviour and Redeemer.

Nope - all that means is that this is what you think, Alan, and at this stage in the game you could no more think differently than I could suddenly decide that I loved mayonnaise (which I detest) on food. It is just you being you, Alan
 

Can you seriously believe that this could all be done by my subconscious brain activity?  Seriously?

Yes, with the caveat that investigation continues. I suspect it is telling that, as far as I know, the professional scientists studying consciousness aren't looking for 'souls': that should worry you.

[Gordon]

No matter how much you try to wrap it up in technical jargon, any attempt to identify what comprises consciousness in material terms will be based on external observations, which are a totally inadequate means of identifying consciousness.

Have you told all the neurologists and psychologists who study this? I'm sure they need to know that all their training and expertise is wasted, as is the effort of on-going research.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

First, it's not what people just "believe", it's what the overwhelming body of evidence tells us.

Second, I've explained to you at some length now why fallacious arguments are wrong arguments. Not just "not watertight", but wrong. Flat wrong. Why then have you just attempted again your favourite wrong argument, ie the argument from personal incredulity?

You cannot claim something is wrong, flat wrong, just because I have shown scepticism about it.

[Alan Burns]

Have you told all the neurologists and psychologists who study this? I'm sure they need to know that all their training and expertise is wasted, as is the effort of on-going research.

I consider the search for defining material based consciousness to be as pointless as the alchemists dream of making Gold.

[Gordon]

You cannot claim something is wrong, flat wrong, just because I have shown scepticism about it.

Scepticism is fine, Alan: but your dependence on fallacies isn't the same thing at all.

[Alan Burns]

There is no option: biology is material and that is what does the thinking.

Yet there is still no information for what defines thoughts in biological terms

[Gordon]

I consider the search for defining material based consciousness to be as pointless as the alchemists dream of making Gold.

Which is a fallacious argument from ignorance: your ignorance!

[Gordon]

Yet there is still no definition for what defines thoughts in biological terms

So what?

That your thinking is dependent on your functioning biology is inarguable, since without said biology you can't think at all.

That the processes aren't fully understood doesn't open the door to supernatural bollocks, like 'souls'.   

[Alan Burns]

Which is a fallacious argument from ignorance: your ignorance!

It still does not mean that I am wrong.

[Alan Burns]

So what?

That your thinking is dependent on your functioning biology is inarguable, since without said biology you can't think at all.

That the processes aren't fully understood doesn't open the door to supernatural bollocks, like 'souls'.   

I could argue that without the conscious perception of the human soul we would have no thoughts at all - just material reactions.

[Gordon]

I could argue that without the conscious perception of the human soul we would have no thoughts at all - just material reactions.

So you could, but without any rational basis or a smidgen of supporting evidence that would stand scrutiny you'd look very foolish if you did.

[Alan Burns]

So you could, but without any rational basis or a smidgen of supporting evidence that would stand scrutiny you'd look very foolish if you did.

The foolishness comes in trying to define conscious perception in terms of material reactions - it is just not possible.  Perception is not a material reaction.

[Sebastian Toe]

It still does not mean that I am wrong.

You could be wrong though,  couldn't you?

Note I am not asking if you think you are wrong but that you could perhaps actually be, wrong.

[wigginhall]

I consider the search for defining material based consciousness to be as pointless as the alchemists dream of making Gold.

This is quite shocking really, a sort of mini-Dark Ages.   Thank goodness that religion can no longer obstruct empirical research into different phenomena;  this is what your remarks would lead to, the destruction of disciplines such as neuroscience, which is in fact, forging ahead in its investigations into brain and mind.   What a relief that your kind of obscurantism no longer holds sway.

It reminds me of Galileo's apocryphal remark, 'eppur si muove', which he is supposed to have said when released - and still it moves, meaning that the earth does go round the sun.   I can imagine AB at the front of the mob saying that the earth doesn't move.     

[Alan Burns]

This is quite shocking really, a sort of mini-Dark Ages.   Thank goodness that religion can no longer obstruct empirical research into different phenomena;  this is what your remarks would lead to, the destruction of disciplines such as neuroscience, which is in fact, forging ahead in its investigations into brain and mind.   What a relief that your kind of obscurantism no longer holds sway.   

My argument is based upon the fact that if the soul does exist as a spiritual entity which enables conscious awareness of the information held within our brain, no amount of neuroscientific investigation will discover it.