Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[Stranger]

How does consciousness emerge?

I dunno, but I note that you're now in full running away mode....

[Steve H]

How does consciousness emerge?

I don't think it has done, in the case of many people on social media.

[Free Willy]

I dunno, but I note that you're now in full running away mode....

That isn’t a truthful answer.
Your truthful answer is I don’t know but I know it’s chiefly determined.
I am not, I reiterate, denying determined phenomena or random phenomena but neither am I denying agency causation as I have said. These and stochastic systems are things which YOU appear to have avoided.

I have to say I am getting the whiff of reductionist materialism here. In terms of emergence, I’m not sure that starting with wetness then diving down into the particle theory then physics is “prediction” from single atoms. What you are calling predicting all stages from basic atoms seems in reality, knowing all the stages.

[Stranger]

I am not, I reiterate, denying determined phenomena or random phenomena but neither am I denying agency causation as I have said.

'Agency causation' is still nothing but an empty phrase you keep using. Unless you can explain how it works and now it can possibly offer a third option, you're just mumbling mantras to yourself.

These and stochastic systems are things which YOU appear to have avoided.

Drivel. I'm fine with stochastic processes. They just don't offer the third option you seem to think they do.

I have to say I am getting the whiff of reductionist materialism here.

It has nothing to do with materialism. I did not make that assumption.

In terms of emergence, I’m not sure that starting with wetness then diving down into the particle theory then physics is “prediction” from single atoms. What you are calling predicting all stages from basic atoms seems in reality, knowing all the stages.

The fact is that nothing new emerges in any non-deterministic way. This is an 'in principle' argument. The practicalities of prediction are not relevant.

[Free Willy]

Vlad

Here's a hint - stop digging.

You know me Gordon once I get a shovel in me hand.
Besides, as forum villain it’s my duty to keep grinding to dust while cackling loudly and twirling me moustache.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So let's move beyond your derogatory lazy generalisation shall we.

Chip, why would I want to move on from watching you make a fool of yourself on here - it's even funnier when you insist you're a Professor while making a fool of yourself.

You: I'm an atheist so read your post as implying god exists
Me: I think we're talking about different things as my comment was not about whether god exists but about beliefs about the idea of god. Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists.
You: What a vile derogatory slur to say that I as an atheist read your post as implying god exists! And don't you know I'm a Professor!!

 

I don't think you can really discuss belief in whether god(s) exist without ... err ... discussion of whether god(s) exists.

I think we're talking about different things as my comment was not about whether god exists but about beliefs about the idea of god. Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists.

[Gonnagle]

Chip, why would I want to move on from watching you make a fool of yourself on here - it's even funnier when you insist you're a Professor while making a fool of yourself.

You: I'm an atheist so read your post as implying god exists
Me: I think we're talking about different things as my comment was not about whether god exists but about beliefs about the idea of god. Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists.
You: What a vile derogatory slur to say that I as an atheist read your post as implying god exists! And don't you know I'm a Professor!!

 
I think we're talking about different things as my comment was not about whether god exists but about beliefs about the idea of god. Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists.

Dear Gabriella,

Once again, and quite frankly I think it should be the Mods who point this out to you, chaos would ensue Dear Lady, ideas, beliefs perish the thought, I have visions, nay nightmare of little Atheists seizing up their Critical Thinking going into over drive ( well if they actually did use the damn thing ) no more, please cease and desist it is for the good of the Forum.

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Stranger in his formula giving S as the state of the system and E as it’s Environment.

Ok - I think internal in Stranger's explanation means things like knowledge, leading to motivation and desire that lead to thoughts resulting in a choice being made, including a moral choice. Is that what you also think? 

I would have to ask what sort of choice is that, since the outcome would be predetermined.

Ok so do you think it is possible to have a choice that is not constrained in any way? If yes, can you give me an example?

What I am saying is the ability to respond in Swahili does not necessarily result in a response.

Ok agreed - just because I know Swahili I can choose not to respond.

Do you think I would choose not to respond because I have a reason to not respond? If I have a reason to not respond did I arrive at this reason as a result of previous factors?

Neither do any of the other factors involved in a response in Swahili....and neither do they add to the response since the situation has emerged and an emergent isn’t the sum of it’s components.

The response emerged from components, so do you think it would have still emerged without those components? 

I am not ruling out determination in certain circumstances or randomness, just exploring how indeterminancy might be more than just randomness.

In what way - maybe try giving me an example of an indeterminant response related to morals? I am open to changing my mind on this but currently Stranger's simple formula makes sense to me. Unless you give me an alternative of an example of a moral choice that involves indeterminant but not random, I don't understand where you are coming from.

Agent Causation. Look, the example of randomness is nuclear disintegration. Is that an adequate descriptor for what happens in choice? Or is it emerged agent causation? For example random events are described as mindless. That assertion isn’t drawn from the term “indeterminancy”.

Maybe again relate it to an actual example of moral choice. I have occasionally faced moral choices where I don't know which choice to pick and because I have to pick a choice, I pick one randomly - but I don't know whether it is truly a random choice. I think some part of my brain subconsciously predicts potential consequences based on my nature/ nurture (which includes my beliefs as theist) and weighs up out of the potential consequences of each choice, which one carries more risk of being harder to deal with when something goes wrong. I suspect my nature is such that I pick the choice that my brain has assessed carries lower risk of a fall-out that I would find hard to cope with.

So it might appear mindless but I suspect that it was prompted by motivations and desires at a sub-conscious level based on my nature/ nurture.

And as I have said Agent causation must exist where there is a system but no environment, where the system is the agent, it’s own cause or in a loop causality where everything is it’s own causal agent.

Even if you have agent causation, (1) what created the motivation or desire in the agent, and (2) isn't the choice they can make constrained by their nature/nurture?

Also in the case of the necessary entity that is a supreme case of agent causality since there is nothing which determines it and no context for randomness.

If there is a necessary entity, then yes it presumably would have no determinants, but we don't have evidence to say a necessary entity is the most plausible explanation - the concept is currently a possible explanation.

Also, why would the attributes of a necessary entity apply to human moral choices? Can you even describe the action of the necessary entity as a 'moral' choice and if so, why?

[ProfessorDavey]

... you insist you're a Professor ...

And don't you know I'm a Professor!!

Dear, oh dear - here we go again.

Why do you have such an issue with me being a Professor VG?

Now I cannot remember how long you've been part of our merry little community, but I've been here since the old BBC days. And throughout my username has always been ProfessorDavy (sometimes shortened by other posters variously to PD, the Prof, ProfDavey and Davey), because I'm a professor and my name is David .

And of course, what any poster chooses to reveal, or not to reveal, on here about my personal and/or professional life outside this MB is none of your business. But I have always been completely open about my professional position throughout my time on these MBs, not least because I think it provides a level of professional credibility when discussing academic research, which happens quite often here, and also because it means I often have access to the full version of academic studies, when others here may be restricted to just the abstract, which many posters have found rather helpful at times.

And over the years, all the way back to the BBC days I must have interacted with hundreds of posters and you are pretty well the only person who has had an issue with me being a professor. Why is that VG? - perhaps you have outed yourself as the one with the chip on their shoulder.

[ProfessorDavey]

You: I'm an atheist so read your post as implying god exists
Me: I think we're talking about different things as my comment was not about whether god exists but about beliefs about the idea of god. Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists.
You: What a vile derogatory slur to say that I as an atheist read your post as implying god exists!

Total misrepresentation of the discussion between us.

And do you have anything to say about my relatively length post (reply 371), which you will note discusses belief in god just as much as it does the existence of god - indeed I think rather more. Yet apparently I seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists, because I'm an atheist!

For example what is your view on my point that if you consider that whether god actually exists or not isn't important and all that matters is belief, then the existence of god in itself becomes irrelevant - so god becomes nothing more than a subjective (true for me) concept and any impact of god is merely a placebo/nocebo effect that doesn't require god's actual existence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear Gabriella,

Once again, and quite frankly I think it should be the Mods who point this out to you, chaos would ensue Dear Lady, ideas, beliefs perish the thought, I have visions, nay nightmare of little Atheists seizing up their Critical Thinking going into over drive ( well if they actually did use the damn thing ) no more, please cease and desist it is for the good of the Forum.

Gonnagle.

Yeah I should be more careful, you're right 

I personally don't focus on the existence of god as there is no method to gather objective evidence. But I have ideas about the concept of god based on my belief. If I incorporate these ideas about god into my life, it seems to have a beneficial effect on my life, therefore I want to incorporate these ideas of god into my life.

From having read the posts over the years, the atheists on this forum claim they don't incorporate any of these ideas about the concept of god into their lives, because they have no need of these ideas.

I remember being an atheist and thinking this whole concept of a 'being' that you should worship was beyond daft and was extremely demeaning.

I also remember being an atheist after having certain life experiences, where the idea of worship seemed less demeaning.

So I do remember being atheist who discussed ideas about god rather than just focusing on the belief/ lack of belief about god's existence.

[Gonnagle]

Yeah I should be more careful, you're right 

I personally don't focus on the existence of god as there is no method to gather objective evidence. But I have ideas about the concept of god based on my belief. If I incorporate these ideas about god into my life, it seems to have a beneficial effect on my life, therefore I want to incorporate these ideas of god into my life.

From having read the posts over the years, the atheists on this forum claim they don't incorporate any of these ideas about the concept of god into their lives, because they have no need of these ideas.

I remember being an atheist and thinking this whole concept of a 'being' that you should worship was beyond daft and was extremely demeaning.

I also remember being an atheist after having certain life experiences, where the idea of worship seemed less demeaning.

So I do remember being atheist who discussed ideas about god rather than just focusing on the belief/ lack of belief about god's existence.

Dear Gabriella,

Thank you, a very honest reply

Now on to more important matters, C'MON YOU DONS oops! I mean C'MON YOU HULA HOOPS

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Total misrepresentation of the discussion between us.

Not according to my interpretation of your reply #233 and my reply #234. And according to you ...it is the interpretee (i.e me) who is the custodian of how I interpreted your comments.

How's that custodian thing working for you?

And do you have anything to say about my relatively length post (reply 371), which you will note discusses belief in god just as much as it does the existence of god - indeed I think rather more. Yet apparently I seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists, because I'm an atheist!

For example what is your view on my point that if you consider that whether god actually exists or not isn't important and all that matters is belief, then the existence of god in itself becomes irrelevant - so god becomes nothing more than a subjective (true for me) concept and any impact of god is merely a placebo/nocebo effect that doesn't require god's actual existence.

Thanks for your lengthy post, which again started with you thinking I was discussing the existence of god.

Moving on to the other bit that you highlighted - I can't speak for other theists and I would be interested to know how it happens in their heads - but in my head I think it goes as follows:

(1) I am aware that I believe in the existence of god and that my belief is based on faith as I am not aware of any methodology to get objective evidence of an entity that the Quran describes as not being similar or comparable to anything that I would encounter objectively ...or possibly also subjectively...in this world.

(2) I am aware I did not choose belief - it just happened - in fact it happened when I was trying to reason a Muslim into becoming an atheist and I opened the Quran to get some ammunition to persuade the Muslim (now my husband) that it was all contradictory, simplistic stupidly-phrased nonsense.

(3) I am aware that some / many people think of me as stupid/ irrational/ pathetic/ brainwashed/ deficient in thinking etc for admitting to my belief and incorporating the ideas that stem from belief into my life. Especially, as I publicly identify as a Muslim, which in the West based on its historic Christian culture and on a forum that is mostly made up of Western atheists, makes me seem even more alien and therefore weird. 

(4) I am aware that incorporating some of the ideas and rituals (based on my faith) into my life has hugely beneficial effects on my well-being and decision-making. So it doesn't matter to me that my belief is based on faith (because there's no methodology to objectively verify the existence of what I have faith in).

(5) The effects that my belief has on me would not work if I did not believe that god exists as a true for everyone concept. So no, it's not a subjective 'true for me' belief.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear, oh dear - here we go again.

Why do you have such an issue with me being a Professor VG?

Because it seems to push your buttons so it's fun. I come on this forum to have fun.

Interesting discussions are fun. But sometimes other things are fun ....

[Dicky Underpants]

Chip, why would I want to move on from watching you make a fool of yourself on here - it's even funnier when you insist you're a Professor while making a fool of yourself.

You: I'm an atheist so read your post as implying god exists
Me: I think we're talking about different things as my comment was not about whether god exists but about beliefs about the idea of god. Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists.
You: What a vile derogatory slur to say that I as an atheist read your post as implying god exists! And don't you know I'm a Professor!!

 
I think we're talking about different things as my comment was not about whether god exists but about beliefs about the idea of god. Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists.

[Dicky Underpants]

VG wrote:
"You: What a vile derogatory slur to say that I as an atheist read your post as implying god exists! And don't you know I'm a Professor!!"
A rather free interpretation of what PD wrote, and I do somehow seem to have missed the last sentence in the original post .
Your posts are interesting, but you do seem over-preoccupied with academic qualifications (did you fail some you badly wanted? Or feel that people don't flatter you enough?)

[ProfessorDavey]

Because it seems to push your buttons so it's fun. I come on this forum to have fun.

If that is to be believed (and I'm far from convinced, and nor it appears is DU) then it would be remarkably childish and petty.

And, no it doesn't push my buttons as I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I am a professor and indeed received my chair 21 years ago almost to the day. If you are unable to accept that fact then that is your problem, not mine.

But it really does seem to push your buttons - indeed if I recall correctly on one previous occasion when you threw your toys out of the pram about me being a professor you added some added some completely concocted gongs and titles to your strapline.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your posts are interesting, but you do seem over-preoccupied with academic qualifications (did you fail some you badly wanted? Or feel that people don't flatter you enough?)

It would certainly appear so - I don’t know why though.

[Gonnagle]

VG wrote:
"You: What a vile derogatory slur to say that I as an atheist read your post as implying god exists! And don't you know I'm a Professor!!"
A rather free interpretation of what PD wrote, and I do somehow seem to have missed the last sentence in the original post .
Your posts are interesting, but you do seem over-preoccupied with academic qualifications (did you fail some you badly wanted? Or feel that people don't flatter you enough?)

Dear Dicky,

It went to penalties⚽⚽

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG wrote:
"You: What a vile derogatory slur to say that I as an atheist read your post as implying god exists! And don't you know I'm a Professor!!"
A rather free interpretation of what PD wrote, and I do somehow seem to have missed the last sentence in the original post .

That's sweet that rather than putting you to sleep, you actually want to jump into this discussion that Chip and I are having about his hilarious posts.

The post you seem to have missed is Reply #357 where he told me that in my reply #234, I should have said "'ProfD - you seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

I interpreted that as Chip seems rather keen that I address him as Prof rather than PD.

According to PD in reply #363, the person doing the interpreting gets to decide how to interpret a post 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Your posts are interesting, but you do seem over-preoccupied with academic qualifications (did you fail some you badly wanted? Or feel that people don't flatter you enough?)

I understand your doubts about whether I passed exams. After all this is an anonymous forum - anyone can come on here claiming to be a Professor or The Accountant O.B.E. K.C.  If you want to believe they really are a Professor or The Accountant or an O.B.E or a K.C., that's up to you.

By the way, my avatar on this anonymous forum is from the film The Accountant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accountant_(2016_film)

Do you think my posts on law or accounting carry more weight than another poster's because I call myself "The Accountant K.C.? 

Or as PD put it in one of his posts on the 'Religions Have Succeeded' thread reply #226 on the issue of consent (though this is by no means the only time he claimed his supposed credentials meant he was correct):

"And I'm doing this from the perspective of someone who has been professionally involved in assessing the process of consent for some 25 years."

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19250.226

My reply #249 on the 'Religions Have Succeeded' was to point out his error despite his claims of being a Professor who was an expert on 'consent':

"PD - as has been demonstrated many times on here before, your ability to comprehend English and form an argument can be prone to error. Where have I said that I think what is written in text is evidence of a supernatural conception?

We were actually discussing your errors in arguing that a few words written in a Bible story was evidence for any clear conclusion of anything. I was also pointing out your error in attempting to claim that you could decide what is and isn't consent based on your supposed credentials as some kind of lecturer in the field of research ethics. Sure, you can have an opinion but it's no more valid than anyone else's opinion. You quoted something from the CPS about the issue of consent, and I pointed out that the CPS guidance is that consent should be a matter for a jury to decide.

That you would not want to admit your error is not surprising - you're not known for admitting when you are wrong."

[ProfessorDavey]

The post you seem to have missed is Reply #357 where he told me that in my reply #234, I should have said "'ProfD - you seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

I interpreted that as Chip seems rather keen that I address him as Prof rather than PD.

Sure - I can see that someone might plausibly interpret my comment in that manner - but only if they were bizarrely obsessed with someone else's academic and professional credentials.

To be clear - I could have easily used PD, ProfessorDavey, Prof or Davey (as these are my full user-name and a bunch of abbreviations that are commonly used). I plucked one out of the air. Why, no idea, but certainly not because I need to be addressed as prof. Frankly that is totally bonkers. VG, if you actually were a prof you'd recognise that the title carries no currency in day to day life, as in academia profs are ten a penny and privately no-one cares. In a professional context, I'm always referred to as David, my line managers are Hazel and Andrew for different aspects of my work. All are, of course, profs.

So your rather bizarre interpretation of my short sentence tells us much more about your hang up with me being a prof than it does about me.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gabriella,

See! I just can't help myself, I did have a accident when I was very young ( life and death stuff ) but it is the equivalent of someone saying to me "were you dropped on your head as a child" as I say I just can't help myself and anyway this post match analysis started by our good friend Dicky is so much fun ( if I remember Dicky is very good with the Higher Criticism argument )

Anyway as our post match debate continues, I will try to stick to the human interest side, The film the Accountant, excellent film, not a fan of Ben Affleck, but he was brilliant in that film, as for the Prof being a Prof, if he says so, but from a human interest side, many posters will now be thinking " I wonder what wee Chip is chuntering on about today, or is that just me

So back to the studio for more unbiased post match analysis from our slightly more ( you did say slightly Chip ) Atheist panel.

Gonnagle.

PS: For the record, Gonnagle, Keeper of the history, singer of songs, Bard and last but not least player of the Mousepipes ( although the Polis have never caught me, yet!! )

[ProfessorDavey]

I understand your doubts about whether I passed exams. After all this is an anonymous forum - anyone can come on here claiming to be a Professor or The Accountant O.B.E. K.C.  If you want to believe they really are a Professor or The Accountant or an O.B.E or a K.C., that's up to you.

By the way, my avatar on this anonymous forum is from the film The Accountant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accountant_(2016_film)

Do you think my posts on law or accounting carry more weight than another poster's because I call myself "The Accountant K.C.? 

Or as PD put it in one of his posts on the 'Religions Have Succeeded' thread reply #226 on the issue of consent (though this is by no means the only time he claimed his supposed credentials meant he was correct):

"And I'm doing this from the perspective of someone who has been professionally involved in assessing the process of consent for some 25 years."

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19250.226

My reply #249 on the 'Religions Have Succeeded' was to point out his error despite his claims of being a Professor who was an expert on 'consent':

"PD - as has been demonstrated many times on here before, your ability to comprehend English and form an argument can be prone to error. Where have I said that I think what is written in text is evidence of a supernatural conception?

We were actually discussing your errors in arguing that a few words written in a Bible story was evidence for any clear conclusion of anything. I was also pointing out your error in attempting to claim that you could decide what is and isn't consent based on your supposed credentials as some kind of lecturer in the field of research ethics. Sure, you can have an opinion but it's no more valid than anyone else's opinion. You quoted something from the CPS about the issue of consent, and I pointed out that the CPS guidance is that consent should be a matter for a jury to decide.

That you would not want to admit your error is not surprising - you're not known for admitting when you are wrong."

This whole post tells us far more about the chip you have on your shoulder about my academic and professional credentials than it does about me.

What is it about your bizarre hang up about me being a prof and an academic who has been involved in ethics and consent (both in practice and teaching) for 30 odd years. It really is very odd.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So your rather bizarre interpretation of my short sentence tells us much more about your hang up with me being a prof than it does about me.

Yes it tells you that when you tried to claim that you are a professor of ethics and therefore an expert on consent and your opinions carry more weight than those of other posters, I laughed at you and said it would be more useful to look at whether your arguments are strong enough to stand on their own merits rather than needing your supposed credentials to try to bolster them.

After that, it's just fun to remind you of that.