BA77 links on the consequences of mind = brain ideologies

_{kairosfocus

February 3, 2018

Amorality, Animal minds, Artificial Intelligence, Atheism, Evolutionary Incoherence, Food for thought, Humor, Lessons of History, mind and brain, rhetoric, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

While we’re on a roll on AI and its import at the hands of evolutionary materialistic scientism dressed in a lab coat, BA77 has linked a comic strip — see here (main site here; cf. twist on The Cave currently top of the heap) — that is at first funny then soberingly serious:

As in, where do you think these issues fit in:

And perhaps Engineer Derek Smith’s model has a few points to ponder as we think about the higher order, supervisory controller in the cybernetic loop:

The Derek Smith two-tier controller cybernetic model

Food for thought. END

PS: Could I put up for reflection the notion that the human soul is at the interface of spirit and body, including Brain and CNS?

Comments

daveS: So, it seems that we all agree on the basic points. That's good! :)gpuccio_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PST}

KF, Certainly your argument essentially rules out the possibility that a hypothetical conscious rock could use its physical body to interact with the physical world, like all conscious beings that I'm aware of do. The scenario of a "spirit resident in a rock" that you described is the only notion of "conscious rock" that I find conceivable. And you are right that it's totally unclear what connection the immaterial consciousness of the rock would have to the physical rock itself.daveS_{February 6, 2018
February
02
Feb
6
06
2018
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PST}

DS, the relevant manifestation of consciousness would be embodied. That's why I pointed to the Smith model, highlighting the external and internal sensory arrays and networks that allow self-awareness, orientation in the world and awareness of the self in the world. Rocks simply do not have any evidence of such arrays, or of responsiveness generally. Going further, we may for argument ponder a spirit resident in a rock. It would be conscious of itself, but that does not belong to the rock. Going further it is suggested that God is aware of everywhere, every moment, but that is God's awareness, not the rock. Thus, we have good warrant for concluding that a rock is not a conscious being. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PST}

gpuccio, I don't really disagree with anything you've said. But the question I was addressing (prompted by CR's and KF's posts) is how do we know when something is not conscious? It seems like such a statement would be unverifiable. And yes, it may be more of a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.daveS_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PST}

daveS: I would say that we don't know if a rock is conscious, but that we have no special reasons to believe that. Science is about reasonable inferences, not about mere imagination. So, who do we know for certain to be conscious? The answer is rather simple. Each of us is certain of his own consciousness. Our personal consciousness is perceived intuitively by each of us. That is a fact. That is observable consciousness. On that simple fact we build all our map of reality. What about other human beings? Indeed, we do not observe their consciousness, but we infer it. It's an inference by analogy, and whoever has anything against inferences by analogy (good inferences by analogy) should be ready to renounce his belief that other human beings are conscious. But, of course, almost nobody would do that. Because that simple inference by analogy is so strong, so perfectly reasonable, that we consider it almost an observed fact. Almost. What about animals? Again, it's an inference by analogy. Personally, I have no doubts that higher animals (like my three cats) are conscious. But it is still an inference by analogy, and of course the analogy is a little weaker: cats and dogs share a lot of behaviours with us, and many of them are formally correspondent to some of our cosncious representations. But they do not speak, or generate abstract language and concepts, and so on. What about birds, fish, flies, bacteria? Again, we can only infer. By analogy. The greater the analogy, the stronger the inference. Each of us can make his own choices, but of course, while almost anyone would agree that other human beings are cosncious, only some would say that bacteria are conscious. In the end, we don't really know. For non biological matter, an inference of consciousness is not really motivated, IMO. It can still be done, but it would be more some philosophical argument than some real inference from observed facts. So, I think that any scientific reasoning should at present stick mainly to the widest, and strongest, inference: other human beings are conscious as we are, and we can rely on the shared experience of cosnciousness and of its properties between human beings to build scientific arguments and theories about consciousness itself. As KF has done here. As I try to do in my biological arguments.gpuccio_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST}

john_a_designer: "Furthermore, if it’s logically possible that something could be designed then it’s not illegitimate to consider the possibility that it really might be designed. Indeed, it would be foolish not to." Great statement indeed! And a great truth. :)gpuccio_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PST}

LM, I don't believe that my response addresses any of these questions of his:
Why doesn’t a rock experience consciousness? How do we know it doesn’t? If conscious beings are not conscious because they are well adapted for that purpose, then couldn’t a rock be consciousness?
daveS_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PST}

DaveS@74
I don’t believe rocks are conscious beings.
I believe you have answered CR's question.
Whether rocks are “beings” in some more general sense, I don’t know.
Then I guess I don't know whether or not they are conscious in some more 'general' sense.Latemarch_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PST}

LM, I don't believe rocks are conscious beings. Whether rocks are "beings" in some more general sense, I don't know.daveS_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PST}

DaveS@69 LM,
The meaning of that sentence is quite clear to me, although I think there’s a typo at the end. Omitting the parenthetical remark:
If conscious beings are not conscious because they are well adapted for that purpose, then couldn’t a rock be conscious?
I thought that possible but, unlike you, I'm not going to claim to be able to read CR's mind. I'll answer the question if you'll answer mine first. Is a rock a being?Latemarch_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PST}

Latemarch,
"Just because he strung together words and placed a question mark at the end did not make it a question."
Only dogmatic atheists would ever find it logically coherent to presuppose he could ever construct any meaningful sentence within a universe that he insists has no meaning.
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Moreover, since the ability to assign meaning must preexist the creation of information, especially must preexist creating a code to be able to encode information in the first place,, ,,,then finding information to be foundational to life (and to the universe) is almost directly equivalent to finding that there must be a far deeper meaning for life
Information Enigma (Where did the information in life come from?) – – Stephen Meyer – Doug Axe – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall (Shannon Channel Capacity) Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery. We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/ 48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
bornagain77_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PST}

KF, If your remark about your friend "rocky" is not meant to suggest that CR actually believes rocks are conscious, then I withdraw my comment in #65.daveS_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PST}

DS, take a look at the Smith Model in the OP and especially the two-tier controller with shared memory and access to world perception as well as proprioception. Blend in my clips and comments on quantum influences, especially Calef. Then realise what I have invited by way of a serious discussion; then compare the actual remarks above and come back to us on consciousness of an embodied entity. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST}

LM, The meaning of that sentence is quite clear to me, although I think there's a typo at the end. Omitting the parenthetical remark:
If conscious beings are not conscious because they are well adapted for that purpose, then couldn’t a rock be conscious?
daveS_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

BA77,KF,CR,and DS: CR is not asking a question in good faith. Just because he strung together words and placed a question mark at the end did not make it a question. Now I have a vague idea of what he's trying to ask but one cannot meaningfully answer vague. We just go round and round with CR denying that's his position and demanding an answer to his non-question. CR, you should instead reformulate the question. It's a logical, grammatical, and semantic mess. Leave out the snark about God and adapted as if He is part of nature. You know better. If you think that you have a serious question then stick to the proper philosophical definition. It's not as if KF hasn't given you one numerous times. I know that's not what you believe about God but for your question to be taken seriously that's the definition you will have to use. Otherwise all you have is a strawman. If you use a proper definition of God, I think that you will find that your question no longer hangs together logically.
If conscious beings are not conscious because they are well adapted for that purpose (which is not my position), then couldn’t a rock be consciousness?
What does this sentence even mean? Do you read this stuff before you hit post?Latemarch_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST}

If being alive has nothing to do with being materially well adapted, then why can’t a rock be alive?
Rocks don't metabolize, they don't reproduce, they are not biological and they are inanimate.
What does its composition have to do with anything at all?
It has everything to do with it. Perhaps you should just try to make a case for rock consciousness instead of just fishing. Because your fishing is starting to hurt what little credibility you have left.ET_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PST}

daveS, an internet atheist complaining about 'engaging in good faith' is the height of hypocrisy. I have yet to meet an atheist on the internet who engages the arguments and evidence presented against his position in 'good faith'. (Please note that even in your appeal to 'good faith' that you are appealing to a Theistic presupposition).
good faith noun honesty or sincerity of intention. Intention noun a thing intended; an aim or plan. The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor - 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: - Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
bornagain77_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PST}

KF,
my 20-tonne friend rocky in my backyard says hi
Not that there's anything wrong with a bit of light mockery, but are you sure that you're engaging in good faith with CR's stated position?daveS_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PST}

CR, attempted hyperskeptical evasion duly noted. BTW, my 20-tonne friend rocky in my backyard says hi. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2018
February
02
Feb
5
05
2018
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PST}

CR, you did not answer my question directly, nor did you address the empirical evidence presented against your position (which you can't address). So again, you seem to be arguing that rocks are conscious and, by extension, are also arguing that they have the 'illusion of free will'. Again, Einstein also held this position, for instance:
“In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever.,,," “I am compelled to act as if free will existed, because if I wish to live in a civilized society I must act responsibly. . . I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him.” - Albert Einstein - early 1930s http://www.esotericonline.net/profiles/blogs/einstein-s-mystical-views-on-freedom-causality-and-morality
Please note that Einstein, like other leading Atheists, freely admits that it is impossible for him to live as if free will did not actually exist. And again I repeat, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Now you may say to yourself, "Hey. I'm in the same boat with Einstein therefore it can't be all that bad." But regardless of all that, being wrong is still being wrong. And Einstein was wrong not only in regards to free will, but Einstein was also famously shown to be wrong in his opposition to Quantum Mechanics. In fact, the main evidence that I presented for the reality of free will is the fact that free will is 'built into' the equations of quantum mechanics.
Determinism vs Free Will – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwPER4m2axI As Zeilinger stated: “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger - Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
In fact, Einstein was also shown, by advances in quantum mechanics, to be wrong in his purely 'physical' definition of time. A 'relativistic' definition of 'physical' time which was suppose to be his main claim to fame. In fact, Einstein was denied a Nobel prize for relativity precisely because his physical definition of time did not mesh with the philosophical, i.e. 'mental', definition of time that had been well elucidated at that time
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time - Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them ... unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism. Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more. Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death. ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’ Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568 Einstein vs. "The Now" of Philosophers and Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwyHUxoKWNM
Of interest to the undermining of the space-time of General Relativity as a 'complete' description of reality, Einstein was once asked by Rudolf Carnap (a philosopher):
"Can physics demonstrate the existence of 'the now' in order to make the notion of 'now' into a scientifically valid term?"
Einstein's answer was categorical, he said:
"The experience of 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics."
Moreover, the statement Einstein made to Carnap on the train, 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement’, was an interesting statement for Einstein to make to the philosopher since 'the now of the mind' has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, now undermined the space-time of Einstein's General Relativity as to being the 'complete' frame of reference for reality.
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf
Contrary to what Einstein thought was possible for experimental physics, 'the experience of the now' is very much a part of physical measurement, As the following researcher in Quantum Mechanics stated, "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,"
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms - Mind = blown. - FIONA MACDONALD - 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Now CR, I don't expect you to be honest with any of the experimental evidence I presented, especially after your fiasco of claiming that GR and QM 'completely disagree with experimental results', but for the sake of others reading, I hope it is clear that CR's (and Einstein's) position regarding the 'illusion of free will', is directly undermined by advances in quantum mechanics.bornagain77_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PST}

Notice all the following quotes are from men who believe that evolution is a mindless and purposeless process. (from #26 above.)
“This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature…. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.” George Gaylord Simpson – “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” – 1947 living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed” Richard C. Lewontin – Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book ‘Evolution’ (September 1978) “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 138 (1990) “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30 “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1
If something appears to be designed isn’t it logically possible it really could be designed? The main argument for the design then can be stated very simply:
1.If it looks designed, it really could be designed. 2. Even the simplest self-replicating life forms The Prokaryotic Cell looks designed. 3. Therefore, it really could be designed.
Furthermore, if it’s logically possible that something could be designed then it’s not illegitimate to consider the possibility that it really might be designed. Indeed, it would be foolish not to.john_a_designer_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PST}

@ET
CR: Why doesn’t a rock experience consciousness? CR: How do we know it doesn’t? ET: It's not alive.
If being alive has nothing to do with being materially well adapted, then why can't a rock be alive? What does its composition have to do with anything at all? Is God well adapted for any purpose, let alone being alive? Is he yet somehow alive? Again, apparently, the best explanation we can possibility have for why rocks are not alive is because "Zeus rules" here. If he wanted rocks to be alive, they would be. But, apparently, that's just wasn't in the cards for rocks. Then again, I guess they don't know what they're missing.critical rationalist_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PST}

@KF & BA77
CR, you are unaware that rocks have neither life nor contemplations, much less dreams? Thanks for letting us know just how absurd your views are collectively. KF
It seems you have both confused me actually holding a belief personally with attempting to take your position seriously, as if it were true in reality, and that all of your concisions should follow from it, for the purpose of criticism. Now that we've cleared that up, I'll ask again:...
If conscious beings are not conscious because they are well adapted for that purpose (which is not my position), then couldn’t a rock be consciousness? The OP seems to argue that, since rocks doesn’t have any material way of receiving input, they are not conscious. But God is supposedly non-material, and is therefore not well adapted for the purpose of receiving input, either. Does that mean that mean [theists] think God doesn’t have a way to receive input? If not, then why can’t rocks receive input as well? [...] IOW, the best explanation we can have as to why rocks are not conscious is because “Zeus rules here.”, “That’s just what Zeus must have wanted”, etc.
critical rationalist_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PST}

Basically, denying the reality of free will and/or consciousness, runs straight into denying the reality of our very own agent causality, which is insane:
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let's Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: "Epistemology -- how we know -- and ontology -- what exists -- are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won't include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn't write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact. "That's crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then -- to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse -- i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss -- we haven't the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world -- such as your email, a real pattern -- we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
Even leading Atheists admit that it is impossible for them to live as if they really had no free will:
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
Dawkins himself admitted that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
CR, are you going to exercise your free will and choose to stop living in a delusion as you currently are?bornagain77_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PST}

CR, along with consciousness, do you believe rocks also have the 'illusion of free will'? Einstein believed that.
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/
The main problem for atheists with their denying the reality of their free will, and claiming that free will is just an illusion, is that it renders all their claims that they are making logically coherent arguments null and void:
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
As Dr Egnor makes clear in the following article, "logic — is neither material nor natural." Therefore, any attempt to reduce logic to purely natural explanations will forever be in vain.
Naturalism and Self-Refutation - Michael Egnor - January 31, 2018 Excerpt: For Clark, thoughts merely appear out of matter, which has no properties, by the laws of physics, for generating thought. For Clark to assert that naturalistic matter as described by physics gives rise to the mind, without immateriality of any sort, is merely to assert magic. Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Moreover, as Steven Weinberg points out, in quantum mechanics free will is 'built into' the equations of quantum mechanics. That is to say in quantum mechanics, instead of humans being the result of the laws of nature as Darwinists hold, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/ Determinism vs Free Will - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwPER4m2axI
Another devastating problem with your claim that rocks are conscious is that material reality does not even exist until someone consciously observes it. Here is a delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms:
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
A few more notes:
Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even a central position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): – Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qphmi8gYE
Quote, Verse and Video
as Francis Schaeffer said, “Christianity is not merely religious truth, it is total truth- truth about the whole of reality.” – Nancy R. Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk
bornagain77_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PST}

I wouldn't say we are "aware" that rocks do not experience consciousness. It's more like an educated guess, or even an assumption. Certainly we have no evidence indicating that rocks are conscious. The people I hang out with don't, anyway.daveS_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PST}

CR, you are unaware that rocks have neither life nor contemplations, much less dreams? Thanks for letting us know just how absurd your views are collectively. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST}

Why doesn’t a rock experience consciousness?
It isn't alive.
How do we know it doesn’t?
It isn't aliveET_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PST}

Why doesn't a rock experience consciousness? How do we know it doesn't? If conscious beings are not conscious because they are well adapted for that purpose, then couldn't a rock be consciousness? The OP seems to argue that, since rocks doesn't have any material way of receiving input, they are not conscious. But God is supposedly non-material, and is therefore not well adapted for the purpose of receiving input, either. Does that mean that mean thesis think God doesn't have a way to receive input? If not, then why can't rocks receive input as well? Again, if we exist in a bubble of explicably that exists in a sea of inexplicability, the best explanation we can possibility have in that sea is that "Zeus rules there". However, it doesn't stop there as our bubble supposedly depends on that inexplicable sea, as well. As such, the best explanation we can have here is that "Zeus rules here" as well. It only seems explicable unless you avoid asking specific questions, like the one I just asked above. IOW, the best explanation we can have as to why rocks are not conscious is because "Zeus rules here.", "That's just what Zeus must have wanted", etc.critical rationalist_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PST}

PPS: Let the ghost of Socrates speak from 2400 years ago:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus_{February 4, 2018
February
02
Feb
4
04
2018
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply