Argument for God(s) Second Edition - please critique

[1137]

Quite the premises. Even dualists and others who might support this view would certainly not be content to treat them as undefended assumptions.

You have assumed there is an external universe. The only access we have to this universe (assuming it exists) is via physical interactions with it (seeing, touching, etc.), and inferences from such interactions combined with internal conceptual frameworks, the mind, etc. Thus, for example, in cosmology one regularly finds physical descriptions of phenomena which have never (and in some cases can never) be observed in any sense other than by applying thought to the mathematical structures in physical theories. Physical "laws" are formed by generalizing the results of experiments and observations to form abstract descriptions. They are not external (which is why they have either all proven to be wrong, or to force us to realize that we cannot be treated as pure "observers", isolated from the cosmos we both seek to describe and participate in).

Also, and more simply, there exists no set of physical laws that can be said to describe everything we hold to be physical, even under the assumption that everything can be said to be physical in the sense used in modern physics and reducible to interactions among the most elementary components we can speak of (which depends upon the mathematical framework, problem, and scale concerned; composite particles can be and are taken to be elementary in theories which treat would-be more "elementary" fermions as the building blocks as topological features of the truly elementary bosons).


By this kind of argument, software and programs more generally aren't physical, because they are also things we treat in the abstract, ignoring their physical realizations.



Why eternal? Why can't these assumed laws, for which we have no evidence, evolve?

You make many great points that help explain why I'm moving away from dualism now too.

 

[atanu]

Conscious is a set of eletrochemical activity in the brain whose main function is to

1) interface with the electrical signals arising from different parts of the brain,

2) extract high level information patterns from these region specific activity

3) synthesize the extracted signals from various centers together

4) Feed the information back into the specialized centers so that each gets an input as to what is going on elsewhere and hence modulate their own activity accordingly.

GIGO. That is an explanation that does not explain why you are conscious.

What about fried elctronic board analogy did you not get? The neural cells responsible for the firing itself are destroyed at death. Are you aware of any process that reverses cell death? I am not.

Electronic boards have their creators. Similarly, you are acknowledging that brains have theirs?
.

It would be true just in case I indeed am an automated product of neural firing? This statement is simple a set of information bit stored in the neurons and accessed by the pattern during firing (see above). What of it?

Ha. Ha. You may well be a robot. Then robots may please desist from claiming to be privy to special truths.

 

[sayak83]

GIGO. That is an explanation that does not explain why you are conscious.

It completely explains it as far as I can see.

Electronic boards have their creators. Similarly, you are acknowledging that brains have theirs?

Sure. Laws of nature.
.

Ha. Ha. You may well be a robot. Then robots may please desist from claiming to be privy to special truths

I certainly consider myself to be computational by-product of an organic machine called the brain.

 

[atanu]

It completely explains it as far as I can see.

That is odd. I thought you said that the brain was the seer and the "I" was an artefact of its whimsical firings?

 

[atanu]

The materialist argument usually is variant of the the following two:

"I know that I am not real".
"I know that there is no foundation of true gnosis".

 

[sayak83]

That is odd. I thought you said that the brain was the seer and the "I" was an artefact of its whimsical firings?

Please quote me? What I said does not seem whimsical.

Consciousness is a set of eletrochemical activity in the brain whose main function is to

1) interface with the electrical signals arising from different parts of the brain,

2) extract high level information patterns from these region specific activity

3) synthesize the extracted signals from various centers together

4) Feed the information back into the specialized centers so that each gets an input as to what is going on elsewhere and hence modulate their own activity accordingly.

Are you strawmanning my position?

 

[sayak83]

The materialist argument usually is variant of the the following two:

"I know that I am not real".
"I know that there is no foundation of true gnosis".

I am a property of certain mass-energy structures. Are properties unreal?
I have no idea what you mean by true gnosis.

 

[atanu]

Please quote me? What I said does not seem whimsical.

Consciousness is a set of eletrochemical activity in the brain whose main function is to
Are you strawmanning my position?

Of course no. I am paraphrasing you. As per you, "I am" awareness is a product of electrochemical activity.

So, how can your intelligence, supposedly a product of some electrochemical activity, determine the truth value of any proposition? A robot or a battery operated bunny cannot claim "I know the Truth".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Conscious is a set of eletrochemical activity in the brain whose main function is to

1) It makes no sense to speak to the "main function" of the brain, or at least such functional ascriptions are teleological and are not scientific.
2) The reduction of the mind/consciousness to electrodynamics (quantum or classical) is based upon a series of assumptions that are almost certainly wrong. This is not to day that consciousness is not reducible to neuronal activity (I think it is). It is, rather, to say that we do not understand how consciousness emerges from the brain and have historically ignored the most basic evidence available to us (our subjective, conscious experience) in favor logical principles, worldviews informed by classical physics, etc.
3) Quantum mechanics holds that the fundamental constituents of any electromagnetic system (photons or electrons) have no definite states (i.e., no position, momentum, location, velocity, or even existence) apart from measurement/observation. When I have studied neuronal activity using neuroimaging, I have relied upon signals generated from quantum mechanical aspects of neuronal activity (namely, the alignment of spin in hydrogen atoms as a proxy for hemodynamic activity), like every other research. Yet modern neuroscience relies fundamentally on classical electrodynamics and a worldview informed by classical physics (in which it is wrongly assumed that we can assume our existence can be explained by the physical "laws" we derive by denying we exist). I don't buy into "quantum consciousness" models. I do, however, think that quantum physics has forced us to take our role as conscious observers, who can't be reduced to the dynamics we ascribe to strongly reductionist material systems, seriously.

1) interface with the electrical signals arising from different parts of the brain,

This involves circular causality. The "interface" is the brain: the signals that arise from different parts of the brain are the interface.

2) extract high level information patterns from these region specific activity

This ascribes immaterial status to "information" and agency to the immaterial entity which "extract{S} high level information" from these regions (the brain does this, of course, but to assert that the brain extracts "high level information" from itself it patently ridiculous).

3) synthesize the extracted signals from various centers together

Synchronization among neuronal systems occurs before any signals and is not involved in the processing ("extraction") of signal data in any way independent of the representation of these signals. Synchronization is what allows for the representation of the signals.

4) Feed the information back into the specialized centers so that each gets an input as to what is going on elsewhere and hence modulate their own activity accordingly.

This increasingly sounds like an immaterial mind dictating what the brain does.[/S]

 

[atanu]

I am a property of certain mass-energy structures. Are properties unreal?

Properties are defined and measured by you. And now you say that you are a property of 'mass-energy structure'?

I have no idea what you mean by true gnosis.

I have no doubt that you do not have any idea of what truly the "I awareness" is.

 

[sayak83]

Properties are defined and measured by you. And now you say that you are a property of 'mass-energy structure'?

Properties cannot measure other properties? A detector does it all the time. You do understand that ANY interaction between two QM systems is an act of measurement. Countless such natural measurements between different conglomerations of mass-energy are taking place at all scales constantly everywhere. This is another example.

I have no doubt that you do not have any idea of what truly the "I awareness" is.

I disagree. All human beings have it, and some animals as well.

 

[sayak83]

1) It makes no sense to speak to the "main function" of the brain, or at least such functional ascriptions are teleological and are not scientific.

No its not. Consider a mathematical function F(x)=y. A brain can be said to have a function if it maps certain inputs into certain outputs in a consistent manner. I am pretty sure the brain has many such functions.

3) Quantum mechanics holds that the fundamental constituents of any electromagnetic system (photons or electrons) have no definite states (i.e., no position, momentum, location, velocity, or even existence) apart from measurement/observation. When I have studied neuronal activity using neuroimaging, I have relied upon signals generated from quantum mechanical aspects of neuronal activity (namely, the alignment of spin in hydrogen atoms as a proxy for hemodynamic activity), like every other research. Yet modern neuroscience relies fundamentally on classical electrodynamics and a worldview informed by classical physics (in which it is wrongly assumed that we can assume our existence can be explained by the physical "laws" we derive by denying we exist). I don't buy into "quantum consciousness" models. I do, however, think that quantum physics has forced us to take our role as conscious observers, who can't be reduced to the dynamics we ascribe to strongly reductionist material systems, seriously.

I did not understand what you are saying. Qunatum Mechanics does not require there to be an agent. It requires an observer, which is ANY QM system that can interact strongly enough with the prepared QM states to decohere it from QM superposition to classical probability mixtures. Even the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is a good enough "observer". So..

This involves circular causality. The "interface" is the brain: the signals that arise from different parts of the brain are the interface.

I used the word interface as a verb. Interact. Information exchange. Fourier superposition of signal phases etc.

This ascribes immaterial status to "information" and agency to the immaterial entity which "extract{S} high level information" from these regions (the brain does this, of course, but to assert that the brain extracts "high level information" from itself it patently ridiculous).

Subsystems of the brain extract coarse grained information from other subsystems. Replace intentional language with maths where appropriate.

Synchronization among neuronal systems occurs before any signals and is not involved in the processing ("extraction") of signal data in any way independent of the representation of these signals. Synchronization is what allows for the representation of the signals.

I said synthesize, not synchronization. Synchronization happens in a continuous manner through constant resonant chatter. I am quite aware of this.

This increasingly sounds like an immaterial mind dictating what the brain does.[/S]

It does not. I have no idea how you got that sense. Functional language and design language is perfectly acceptable in many natural systems. No intentions or immaterial agents are implied thereby.

 

[atanu]

Properties cannot measure other properties? A detector does it all the time. You do understand that ANY interaction between two QM systems is an act of measurement. Countless such natural measurements between different conglomerations of mass-energy are taking place at all scales constantly everywhere. This is another example.

BS. Properties cannot measure properties in absence of a conscious agent.

I disagree. All human beings have it, and some animals as well.

Again? Earlier you said "I have no idea what you mean by true gnosis." Now you say "I disagree. All human beings have it..."?

Well. Your disagreement means nothing, since as per you, your intelligence is created of some activities in brain. Since, as per you, intelligence is a product of a mechanism, it will be under control of that mechanism. You are simply non existent for all purposes as an intelligent agent.

The situation is akin to you being a character created by a novelist.

 

[sayak83]

BS. Properties cannot measure properties in absence of a conscious agent.

Absolutely false.

Again? Earlier you said "I have no idea what you mean by true gnosis." Now you say "I disagree. All human beings have it..."?

I do not use the word gnosis to mean self-awareness. It usually has a mystical connotation.

Well. Your disagreement means nothing,

Same here.

since as per you, your intelligence is created of some activities in brain. A character created by a novelist does not the novelist. Since, as per you, intelligence is a product of a mechanism, it will be under control of that mechanism. You are simply non existent for all purposes as an intelligent agent.

Intelligence is a property of certain sections of an active brain. Correct. Just as heat is a property of an active fire. The novelist analogy is unclear.
I am fully constrained by the brain since I am an aspect (or a dynamical property) of the active brain. Correct.
It is more correct to consider the entire brain, or any future computer system capable of sustaining the property of consciousness as the agent. I am (or any consciousness that exists in any other similar brain) is part of this agency and represents the entire system (i.e. the brain) to other brains. This is a cooperative endeavor. I am fully real and existing as a phenomena in the brain and in the functional capacities I outline before.

 

[atanu]

BS. Properties cannot measure properties ....

Absolutely false.

I thought so. We have nothing more to discuss.

(Consider the proposition: Length, a property, measures, breath, another property.

 

[McBell]

"Natural" = all things physical and biological, being in accordance with or determined by natural law. Without the powers of intellect, reason, or understanding. Ingenuous, naïve, unsophisticated, artless. Free from pretension or conscious calculation.

Thank you.
Your added conditional modifiers are most interesting.

 

[McBell]

There's a correlation between mind and body? Who knew?! Oh wait, I did and rarely is it denied that the brain and mind interact.

so basically you are claiming that the mind is not dependent on the brain?

 

[McBell]

If the complex structure of brain gave rise to "I awareness", then that awareness should persist in a dead body, since the physical structure of brain is intact.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking based on wishful thinking.

You are basically saying that a car without gas should still run because the car is still intact.

 

[McBell]

GIGO. That is an explanation that does not explain why you are conscious.

Neither does "GodDidIt"...

Electronic boards have their creators. Similarly, you are acknowledging that brains have theirs?

Since you want to skip the actual thread topic and go straight to god of the gaps...
Do you acknowledge your god has a creator?

Isn't this jumping off onto a random diversion tactic fun?
.

Ha. Ha. You may well be a robot. Then robots may please desist from claiming to be privy to special truths.

You first.

 

[sayak83]

I thought so. We have nothing more to discuss.

(Consider the proposition: Length, a property, measures, breath, another property.

Consider the proposition:- Electric charge a property measures magnetic field another property.
Wave amplitude a property will measure spatial extent , another property. Etc.