Consciousness, Emergence, Evolution Theory, and Scientific Materialism

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Consciousness, Emergence, Evolution Theory, and Scientific Materialism

Several points...

- I am using the term "consciousness" to mean, at the very least, "conscious-awareness."

- It is generally argued by materialists that consciousness is an "emergent" property. That is, somewhere during the process of biological evolution, consciousness suddenly emerged in living organisms. Exactly when this emergence occurred seems to be a bit of mystery. And there doesn't appear to be any kind of consensus in the scientific community concerning which organisms are conscious and which are not. Also, keep in mind that consciousness as an emergent property cannot be compared to any other form of emergence we may observe in nature because every other form is physical, not mental. 

- Evolution theory basically holds that the fittest survive by the process of natural selection. In other words, those members of a species with genetic traits or characteristics which confer some kind of survival benefit are the ones that live and reproduce and thereby pass on their traits to subsequent generations.

- Materialism generally holds that consciousness is a by-product or an epiphenomenon of the physical or that consciousness supervenes on the physical. Both epiphenomenalism and supervenience theory hold that conscious is not causally-efficacious. (Incidentally, both eiphenomenalism and supervenience are dualistic...but now I digress.)

Here's the dilemma for materialists as I see it...

Why was the characteristic  or trait of conscious-awareness naturally selected if consciousness does not confer any survival benefit?  In other words, why aren't all living organisms simply organic "robots without consciousness?" (Remember, according to materialism, consciousness is not causally-efficacious. So it cannot confer any survival benefit.)

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
The problem with most of paisley's threads are that the defintions that he uses are so vague and undefined that he constantly changes the meanings of them to fit is views, which gets to the point that you cannot discuss anything because there is nothing to discuss as there is no proper definition of anything. Conscious is consicous awareness, what is awareness, his defintion is that if you don't know already then he can't define it, however the problem lies is that awareness can mean many things.

I'll make this simple. If the term "conscious-awareness" is not immediately evident to you, then you obviously lack the intellecutal faculties to participate in this debate. 

No paisly sorry, but you have vaguely defined something, conscious as in what state, as I have pointed out to you has VAST definitions depending on how it is being applied, as well as does awareness, again I gave you VARIOUS definition of it which can be used with the term conscious, but you ignored it because you are intellectually dishonest and unable to defend you position if you actually had to use proper definitions, which last time I checked is necessary to argue any point be it philosophically or scientifically. But continue to your way paisley in the end, you have nothing to stand on except dodging the fact that you have no evidence for dualism at all.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I'll make this

Paisley wrote:

I'll make this simple. If the term "conscious-awareness" is not immediately evident to you, then you obviously lack the intellecutal faculties to participate in this debate. 

Nice try, but not being able to define your terms is your personal failing, not ours. You are clearly unable to define what 'conscious-awareness' means or you are leaving it intentionally vague so that you can easily move goalposts to avoid people pinning you down on some point. Someone unable to even define what they are talking about is the person lacking in intellectual rigor.

Basically it works like this: someone asks you to define your terms and you dodge by saying that your terms are obvious or that they are an idiot to even ask that. Then everyone reading knows that you have no clue what you are talking about because you can't even define your terms. Right now you are at the 'no clue what you are talking about' stage in this debate. Both in terms of your inability to define conscious-awareness and in terms of your gross misunderstanding of materialism. I think that some posters here have given up because you befuddle them with your lack of understanding.

As a lighter way of expressing what I think most of us here feel, please enjoy this comic courtesy of cectic.com:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The actual

Paisley wrote:
The actual reason why you gave up is because you were incapable of logically defending your position. I know it and you know it.
Whatever lets you sleep at night, sweetie.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
This is simply a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the fact that no one on this forum can account for why consciousness was naturally selected when it doesn't confer any survival benefit. (This is the subject of the thread).

Paisley, not all things naturally selected offer immediately apparent survival benefits. I don't need to draw attention away from a point that is completely irrelevant.

Your argument implies that it is possible, at least in principle, that "robots without consciousness" could be running the world.  That this is patently absurd simply displays the irrationality of the materialistic worldview.

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Your so-called modern version of materialism is immaterial (the term "immaterial" is meant literally in this context). Probability waves are mathematical abstractions, not physical objects. The dualism of waves and particles is not Cartesian but quantum theory.

Yeah, you can redefine "materialism" to be compatible with uncaused events....but in so doing....you forfeit your right to claim rationality.

Right, sorry, guys - I left this part out of the Paisley cycle: since Paisley takes the terms of quantum mechanics as literal descriptions with philosophical ramifications, quantum mechanics points the way to an immaterial universe. (Despite the fact that the terms are meant as helpful descriptions of what is purely math and experimental observation.)

Yes, the probability waves describes what is experimentally observed. If I understand your argument correctly, scientists should just ignore experimental observations. LOL

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Paisley

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I'll make this simple. If the term "conscious-awareness" is not immediately evident to you, then you obviously lack the intellectual faculties to participate in this debate

No paisly sorry, but you have vaguely defined something, conscious as in what state, as I have pointed out to you has VAST definitions depending on how it is being applied, as well as does awareness, again I gave you VARIOUS definition of it which can be used with the term conscious, but you ignored it because you are intellectually dishonest and unable to defend you position if you actually had to use proper definitions, which last time I checked is necessary to argue any point be it philosophically or scientifically. But continue to your way paisley in the end, you have nothing to stand on except dodging the fact that you have no evidence for dualism at all.

I will not continue to waste my precious time with an individual who cannot immediately grasp the meaning of the term "conscious-awareness." Evidently, you lack the intellectual wherewithal to continue in this discussion. Enough said.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Paisley

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I'll make this simple. If the term "conscious-awareness" is not immediately evident to you, then you obviously lack the intellectual faculties to participate in this debate. 

Nice try, but not being able to define your terms is your personal failing, not ours. You are clearly unable to define what 'conscious-awareness' means or you are leaving it intentionally vague so that you can easily move goalposts to avoid people pinning you down on some point. Someone unable to even define what they are talking about is the person lacking in intellectual rigor.

Basically it works like this: someone asks you to define your terms and you dodge by saying that your terms are obvious or that they are an idiot to even ask that. Then everyone reading knows that you have no clue what you are talking about because you can't even define your terms. Right now you are at the 'no clue what you are talking about' stage in this debate. Both in terms of your inability to define conscious-awareness and in terms of your gross misunderstanding of materialism. I think that some posters here have given up because you befuddle them with your lack of understanding.

I defined the term in the OP of this thread. That you are not able to immediately grasp the meaning of the term "conscious-awareness" is your personal failing, not mine.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Oooh! Pais-Pais wins by

Oooh! Pais-Pais wins by being inscrutable!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Caveat: This post brought to

Caveat: This post brought to you by an intimate evening with friends, and Canadian Club.

Paisley wrote:
Your argument implies that it is possible, at least in principle, that "robots without consciousness" could be running the world.  That this is patently absurd simply displays the irrationality of the materialistic worldview.

The idea that anything "runs the world" is so small-minded that I'm surprised you can even read and write. How many organisms do you figure are involved in your ecosystem, Paisley? How many different species of bacteria are in your body right now? How many chemicals and hormones rule your existence? It's like you live in a cloud, and you can't see any of this. The whole world is out there, Paisley, and you're clinging to ancient philosophy like it's the tails of your mother's dress. The whole, beautiful world spreads itself out in front of you, and all you can do is tell it that it's wrong.

Quote:
Yes, the probability waves describes what is experimentally observed. If I understand your argument correctly, scientists should just ignore experimental observations.

Well, at least we know you've never been a physicist before, because otherwise you would have understood what I said. Probability waves really do describe what is experimentally observed. Good for you, champ! That's why it all makes such good theory. Now, some of the results are hard to interpret. Does that mean that we can throw materialism out the window? Hey, why not? We're only studying the physical world, so why not disregard that, and decide that we're unearthing the Special World of Magic instead? Yeah, that'll be fun!

Your rhetoric sucks. It just flat-out sucks. Someone had to say it, and it's your most patient interlocutor.

I gave you a chance. I really did. I gave you a chance to come up with something more than circular, childish nonsense. I wasn't even giving you rope to hang yourself with, initially. But you seem to have figured that insulting me with trite, rehearsed parroting would be fine. In fact, that it would pass as a reasonable argument in favour of some deity of your choosing. Instead, you've revealed yourself as nothing but a merchant of algorithms, a purveyor of limited and unexpanded "thought". Your alleged mind even stretched itself far enough to step occasionally outside your path of predictable argument.

Then you were back. The Paisley of old: the presumably human writer of incontestably bad arguments against artificial intelligence. Back to the idea that being tricky enough would make the material immaterial. Back to trying everyone's patience with taunting, and nothing constructive.

I won't say "I'm done", or give up on telling you which parts of your pat speeches lack merit. I won't tell you that I'm fed up. The only hope I can have for someone like you is that they become the old dog that learns a new trick.

Throw me a bone: give me something that doesn't look like you're re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Caveat:

HisWillness wrote:
Caveat: This post brought to you by an intimate evening with friends, and Canadian Club.

Paisley wrote:
Your argument implies that it is possible, at least in principle, that "robots without consciousness" could be running the world.  That this is patently absurd simply displays the irrationality of the materialistic worldview.

The idea that anything "runs the world" is so small-minded that I'm surprised you can even read and write. How many organisms do you figure are involved in your ecosystem, Paisley? How many different species of bacteria are in your body right now? How many chemicals and hormones rule your existence? It's like you live in a cloud, and you can't see any of this. The whole world is out there, Paisley, and you're clinging to ancient philosophy like it's the tails of your mother's dress. The whole, beautiful world spreads itself out in front of you, and all you can do is tell it that it's wrong.

Obviously, too much Canadian Club is clouding your thought processes. I don't see anything here that remotely reponds to what I had previously stated.

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Yes, the probability waves describes what is experimentally observed. If I understand your argument correctly, scientists should just ignore experimental observations.

Well, at least we know you've never been a physicist before, because otherwise you would have understood what I said. Probability waves really do describe what is experimentally observed. Good for you, champ! That's why it all makes such good theory. Now, some of the results are hard to interpret. Does that mean that we can throw materialism out the window? Hey, why not? We're only studying the physical world, so why not disregard that, and decide that we're unearthing the Special World of Magic instead? Yeah, that'll be fun!

Materialism is a metaphyiscal position, not a scientific fact. And the prevailing scientific evidence does not support your metaphysical position.

HisWillness wrote:
Your rhetoric sucks. It just flat-out sucks. Someone had to say it, and it's your most patient interlocutor.

I gave you a chance. I really did. I gave you a chance to come up with something more than circular, childish nonsense. I wasn't even giving you rope to hang yourself with, initially. But you seem to have figured that insulting me with trite, rehearsed parroting would be fine. In fact, that it would pass as a reasonable argument in favour of some deity of your choosing. Instead, you've revealed yourself as nothing but a merchant of algorithms, a purveyor of limited and unexpanded "thought". Your alleged mind even stretched itself far enough to step occasionally outside your path of predictable argument.

Then you were back. The Paisley of old: the presumably human writer of incontestably bad arguments against artificial intelligence. Back to the idea that being tricky enough would make the material immaterial. Back to trying everyone's patience with taunting, and nothing constructive.

I won't say "I'm done", or give up on telling you which parts of your pat speeches lack merit. I won't tell you that I'm fed up. The only hope I can have for someone like you is that they become the old dog that learns a new trick.

Throw me a bone: give me something that doesn't look like you're re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I suggest that you lay off the booze.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Obviously, too

Paisley wrote:
Obviously, too much Canadian Club is clouding your thought processes. I don't see anything here that remotely reponds to what I had previously stated.

Not a big surprise. You couldn't connect two dots with a line.

Quote:
Materialism is a metaphyiscal position, not a scientific fact. And the prevailing scientific evidence does not support your metaphysical position.

Metaphysics requires a solid epistemology. What's the most successful epistemology? That's right, the scientific method. Oh, fuck it - this won't even sink in, will it?

Quote:
I suggest that you lay off the booze.

I suggest you take your head out of your ass. Let's face it, neither of us is good at taking suggestions right about now.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I'll make this simple. If the term "conscious-awareness" is not immediately evident to you, then you obviously lack the intellectual faculties to participate in this debate

No paisly sorry, but you have vaguely defined something, conscious as in what state, as I have pointed out to you has VAST definitions depending on how it is being applied, as well as does awareness, again I gave you VARIOUS definition of it which can be used with the term conscious, but you ignored it because you are intellectually dishonest and unable to defend you position if you actually had to use proper definitions, which last time I checked is necessary to argue any point be it philosophically or scientifically. But continue to your way paisley in the end, you have nothing to stand on except dodging the fact that you have no evidence for dualism at all.

I will not continue to waste my precious time with an individual who cannot immediately grasp the meaning of the term "conscious-awareness." Evidently, you lack the intellectual wherewithal to continue in this discussion. Enough said.

Evidently you can't argue your point in a proper format hence why you resort to such childish tactics. At least I gave you the opportunity, at least I can argue my points using proper definitions and the proper understanding of the terminology being used. You however failed to do the simplest of tasks required for a proper debate, fuck even a proper discussion. I don't lack the intelligence, what you lack sir is proper understanding of how to debate, and how to define what you speaking of. Since I have shown you the error of your ways, and all you have done is DODGE the entire request of a proper definition, it is you sir that is lacking the intellectual requirements for a debate or discussion, now it's ENOUGH SAID.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
I admit I am getting awfully close to abandoning the apparently futile attempt to get Paisley to acknowledge even the most explicitly fallacious aspects of his arguments. "Whatever" seems as close as we get to this. IOW "you may be right on that point, but it doesn't matter".

Quite honestly, anyone who espouses eliminative materialism (which apparently you do) is in no position to judge what is fallacious and what is not. And if you want to give up, then I suggest you do so and do it quickly. This way I will know not to waste my precious time on your posts.

Since I clearly do not espouse 'eliminative materialism'. and neither does Daniel Dennett, you are simply showing that you either lack basing reading comprehensions or are deliberately misrepresenting what I have clearly stated.

To quote part of Dennett's writing on 'qualia' in "Consciousness Explained"

Quote:

 In the seventeenth century, the philosopher John Locke (and before him, the scientist Robert Boyle) called such properties as colors, aromas, tastes, and sounds secondary qualities. These were distinguished from the primary qualities: size, shape, motion, number, and solidity. Secondary qualities were not themselves things-in-the-mind but rather the powers of things in the world (thanks to their particular primary qualities) to produce or provoke certain things in the minds of normal observers.

< snip >

Philosophers have adopted various names for the things in the beholder (or properties of the beholder) that have been supposed to provide a safe home for the colors and the rest of the properties that have been banished from the "external" world by the triumphs of physics: "raw feels," "sensa," "phenomenal qualities," "intrinsic properties of conscious experiences," "the qualitative content of mental states," and, of course, "qualia," the term I will use. There are subtle differences in how these terms have been defined, but I'm going to ride roughshod over them. In the previous chapter I seemed to be denying that there are any such properties, and for once what seems so is so. I am denying that there are any such properties. But (here comes that theme again) I agree wholeheartedly that there seem to be qualia.

There seem to be qualia, because it really does seem as if science - has shown us that the colors can't be out there, and hence must be in here. Moreover, it seems that what is in here can't just be the judgments we make when things seem colored to us. This reasoning is confused, however. What science has actually shown us is just that the light-reflecting properties of objects cause creatures to go into various discriminative states, scattered about in their brains, and underlying a host of innate dispositions and learned habits of varying complexity.

There is much more, of course, but I want to make it clear that Dennett is addressing a fairly specific subject here, in a manner far more subtle and informed than you, Paisley, could possibly grasp. He is far from simply denying that 'qualia' exist, rather that what is being addressed by the term is something that is much better understood from a very different point of view, using a different model, more consistent with modern understanding of how the mind and the senses 'work' together.

EDIT: Before you jump to simple conclusions about what he is saying here, note the usage of 'seems' which inherently implies perception itself - there are subtleties involved in statements where this word is used when we are dicussing consciousness/awareness itself...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I defined the

Paisley wrote:

I defined the term in the OP of this thread. That you are not able to immediately grasp the meaning of the term "conscious-awareness" is your personal failing, not mine.

Yes, but when I provided an explanation using your definition, you said that wasn't how you defined it. That's your modus operandi; move the goalposts. That's your personal failing, I guess.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:
Metaphysics requires a solid epistemology. What's the most successful epistemology? That's right, the scientific method. Oh, fuck it - this won't even sink in, will it?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not science.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Since I

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since I clearly do not espouse 'eliminative materialism'. and neither does Daniel Dennett, you are simply showing that you either lack basing reading comprehensions or are deliberately misrepresenting what I have clearly stated.

I have already cited sources in this thread which identifies Daniel Dennett as one of eliminative materialism's chief proponents.

BobSpence1 wrote:
To quote part of Dennett's writing on 'qualia' in "Consciousness Explained"

Quote:

 In the seventeenth century, the philosopher John Locke (and before him, the scientist Robert Boyle) called such properties as colors, aromas, tastes, and sounds secondary qualities. These were distinguished from the primary qualities: size, shape, motion, number, and solidity. Secondary qualities were not themselves things-in-the-mind but rather the powers of things in the world (thanks to their particular primary qualities) to produce or provoke certain things in the minds of normal observers.

< snip >

Philosophers have adopted various names for the things in the beholder (or properties of the beholder) that have been supposed to provide a safe home for the colors and the rest of the properties that have been banished from the "external" world by the triumphs of physics: "raw feels," "sensa," "phenomenal qualities," "intrinsic properties of conscious experiences," "the qualitative content of mental states," and, of course, "qualia," the term I will use. There are subtle differences in how these terms have been defined, but I'm going to ride roughshod over them. In the previous chapter I seemed to be denying that there are any such properties, and for once what seems so is so. I am denying that there are any such properties. But (here comes that theme again) I agree wholeheartedly that there seem to be qualia.

There seem to be qualia, because it really does seem as if science - has shown us that the colors can't be out there, and hence must be in here. Moreover, it seems that what is in here can't just be the judgments we make when things seem colored to us. This reasoning is confused, however. What science has actually shown us is just that the light-reflecting properties of objects cause creatures to go into various discriminative states, scattered about in their brains, and underlying a host of innate dispositions and learned habits of varying complexity.

There is much more, of course, but I want to make it clear that Dennett is addressing a fairly specific subject here, in a manner far more subtle and informed than you, Paisley, could possibly grasp. He is far from simply denying that 'qualia' exist, rather that what is being addressed by the term is something that is much better understood from a very different point of view, using a different model, more consistent with modern understanding of how the mind and the senses 'work' together.

EDIT: Before you jump to simple conclusions about what he is saying here, note the usage of 'seems' which inherently implies perception itself - there are subtleties involved in statements where this word is used when we are dicussing consciousness/awareness itself...

Pain is a secondary quality. On Dennett's view, those who are experiencing pain only SEEM to be experiencing pain. Of course, to have an illusion of pain presupposes that one is having some kind of conscious experience to begin with. This kind of circular reasoning is the hallmark of materialistic explanations of consciousness.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Yes, but

nigelTheBold wrote:
Yes, but when I provided an explanation using your definition, you said that wasn't how you defined it. That's your modus operandi; move the goalposts. That's your personal failing, I guess.

Your so-called explanation not only presupposed subjective awareness but also free will in its argument.  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Yes, but when I provided an explanation using your definition, you said that wasn't how you defined it. That's your modus operandi; move the goalposts. That's your personal failing, I guess.

Your so-called explanation not only presupposed subjective awareness but also free will in its argument.  

Not free will: just self-awareness. Any free will was a presuppostion on your part.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Your so-called explanation not only presupposed subjective awareness but also free will in its argument. 

Not free will: just self-awareness. Any free will was a presuppostion on your part.

You implicitly presupposed free will in order to argue that consciousness is causally-efficacious. If there is no free will, then consciousness has no causal role to play. To date, you have not been able to grasp this simple insight. Either that, or you don't have the intellectual honesty to concede the point.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:You implicitly

Paisley wrote:
You implicitly presupposed free will in order to argue that consciousness is causally-efficacious. If there is no free will, then consciousness has no causal role to play. To date, you have not been able to grasp this simple insight. Either that, or you don't have the intellectual honesty to concede the point.
Projection? I think yes.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:You implicitly

Paisley wrote:

You implicitly presupposed free will in order to argue that consciousness is causally-efficacious. If there is no free will, then consciousness has no causal role to play. To date, you have not been able to grasp this simple insight. Either that, or you don't have the intellectual honesty to concede the point.

No, I specifically did not presuppose free will. Here is what I said:

I wrote:

Self-awareness by definition provides an organism information about how events, circumstances, and options relate to the organism. Therefore, self-awareness is a source of information used in information processing. Therefore, an organism that is self-aware will operate on a different set of information than the organism that is not self aware, but experiencing the same events.

To which you responded:

Paisley wrote:

My definition of consciousness in the OP was simply "awareness." In a deterministic worldview, what other role is there for consciousness to play besides simply being aware? There is NONE. This is the whole point! "Being aware" is simply a passive role, not an active one.

Which is completely incorrect, as you had previously defined consciousness:

Quote:

- I am using the term "consciousness" to mean, at the very least, "conscious-awareness."

Which sounds pretty much the same as self-awareness to me. Note you did not include in the definition anything about free will, nor did I include anything at all about free will in the paragraph above. I did not presuppose free will. As I said, that is something that you bring to the discussion. You haven't yet rebutted the paragraph above, except by silently changing your definition of "conciousness" to include some sort of "active" free will (whatever the hell that means).

And you still haven't given an answer to this very pertinent question:

I wrote:

And I ask again: when you make a decision, how do you go about it? Do you randomly choose? Or do you evaluate your past experience, list your options, project the effects of each option into the future, and choose the one that provides the best projected result?

In any case, you seem to conflate self-awareness with free will. They are different. To date you have not been able to grasp this simple insight. Either that, or you don't have the intellectual honesty to concede the point.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:

You implicitly presupposed free will in order to argue that consciousness is causally-efficacious. If there is no free will, then consciousness has no causal role to play. To date, you have not been able to grasp this simple insight. Either that, or you don't have the intellectual honesty to concede the point.

No, I specifically did not presuppose free will. Here is what I said:

I wrote:

Self-awareness by definition provides an organism information about how events, circumstances, and options relate to the organism. Therefore, self-awareness is a source of information used in information processing. Therefore, an organism that is self-aware will operate on a different set of information than the organism that is not self aware, but experiencing the same events.

You are IMPLICITLY presupposing free will by employing the term "options." In a deterministic worldview, there really are no options. Every "choice" you make could not have been otherwise. This being the case, what possible causal role can consciousness play? Answer: NONE.

nigelTheBold wrote:
To which you responded:

Paisley wrote:
My definition of consciousness in the OP was simply "awareness." In a deterministic worldview, what other role is there for consciousness to play besides simply being aware? There is NONE. This is the whole point! "Being aware" is simply a passive role, not an active one.

Yes, I did state this. And I stand by it. In the worldview of scientific materialism, subjective awareness is passive, not active. Why? Because it denies free will. 

nigelTheBold wrote:
And I ask again: when you make a decision, how do you go about it? Do you randomly choose? Or do you evaluate your past experience, list your options, project the effects of each option into the future, and choose the one that provides the best projected result?

Once again you are presupposing free will by employing the term "decision." In the worldview of atheistic materialism, there are no real "decisions." Every choice you make is predetermined and could not have been other.

Whether free will entails randomness (I would say spontaneity) is not at issue here. What is at issue here is that the worldview of atheistic materialism precludes consciousness from having a causal role. Hitherto, you have not been able to grasp this simple insight. Either that, or you don't have the intellectual honesty to concede the point.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Once again you

Paisley wrote:

Once again you are presupposing free will by employing the term "decision." In the worldview of atheistic materialism, there are no real "decisions." Every choice you make is predetermined and could not have been other.

Whether free will entails randomness (I would say spontaneity) is not at issue here. What is at issue here is that the worldview of atheistic materialism precludes consciousness from having a causal role. Hitherto, you have not been able to grasp this simple insight. Either that, or you don't have the intellectual honesty to concede the point.

What is at issue here is whether self-awareness ("conscious-awareness" ) can be selected by evolution. That's the OP. You stubbornly keep changing it into a discussion of free will.

There is no presupposition of free will in any of my posts. A "decision" is a selection between options. The options are there; there is no free will associated with options. They exist. The selection process does not require free will, any more than a computer requires free will to decide whether 2 > 1, or variable1 == variable2. With self-awareness, the evaluation of options includes the knowledge of the effect of the options on the organism. Note this doesn't require free will, whatever free will is. All it means is the decision process involves more information, providing a better decision mechanism among options. Therefore, self-awareness is a selectable trait. It doesn't matter whether it's deterministic or not; the deterministic processes that involve the information about how options affect the organism are still selectable over the deterministic processes that don't include that information.

There is no free will associated with selecting among options. As organisms are always selecting among options at every level of biological complexity, it's self-evident that selecting an option does not presuppose free will. When discussing the differences in selecting among options, the only difference between an ameoba and a human is the amount of information processed when selecting an option.

[EDIT: replaced "selection" with "decision" where appropriate, so as not to confuse the "selection of an option" (decision) with the evolutionary "selection of a trait."]

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Whether free

Paisley wrote:

Whether free will entails randomness (I would say spontaneity) is not at issue here. What is at issue here is that the worldview of atheistic materialism precludes consciousness from having a causal role. Hitherto, you have not been able to grasp this simple insight. Either that, or you don't have the intellectual honesty to concede the point.

If there was no "spontaneity" in the decision-making process, would it be free will?

I see I am making you uncomfortable, as you are yet again avoiding that question. That's understandable, as I am challanging your worldview.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:What is

nigelTheBold wrote:
What is at issue here is whether self-awareness ("conscious-awareness" ) can be selected by evolution. That's the OP. You stubbornly keep changing it into a discussion of free will.

There is no presupposition of free will in any of my posts. A "decision" is a selection between options. The options are there; there is no free will associated with options. They exist. The selection process does not require free will, any more than a computer requires free will to decide whether 2 > 1, or variable1 == variable2. With self-awareness, the evaluation of options includes the knowledge of the effect of the options on the organism. Note this doesn't require free will, whatever free will is. All it means is the decision process involves more information, providing a better decision mechanism among options. Therefore, self-awareness is a selectable trait. It doesn't matter whether it's deterministic or not; the deterministic processes that involve the information about how options affect the organism are still selectable over the deterministic processes that don't include that information.

That a computer can make "decisions" highlights the point that consciousness plays no active role. Question: What aren't you getting?

Two scenarios:

1) "If variable_one > 2 then do blah, blah, blah" <= not conscious

2) "If variable_one > 2 then do blah, blah, blah" <= conscious

What is consciousness doing in the latter version that is not happening in the former? Answer: NOTHING! Whether the information processing system (regardless of the complexity of the system) is conscious or not is irrelevant. Once again, what aren't you getting?

Another scenario using pseudo-code....

"Select a number between 1 and 10" <== "computer no can do" (well, a computer cannot do it in reality unless this is a quantum computer and we acknowledge that quantum events are truly indeterminate...in which case you are arguing against materialism).

This is the difference between an agent and a robot. Would free will confer some survival benefit? I would think so. However, in the deterministic worldview that is scientific materialism, there is no free will. Therefore, consciousness confers no survival benefit because it plays no causal role. To ask the question once more: What aren't you getting?

nigelTheBold wrote:
When discussing the differences in selecting among options, the only difference between an ameoba and a human is the amount of information processed when selecting an option.

Which begs the question: Is an ameoba conscious? If not, then why was consciousness naturally selected?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:That a

Paisley wrote:

That a computer can make "decisions" highlights the point that consciousness plays no active role.

It highlights no such thing. It says that free will plays no active role. Consciousness is an information source (specifically, information about how the environment affects the organism), while "free will," if it exists, would be part off the decision-making process, which occurs after the information-gathering process. The fact that a computer can "decide" between two objects merely illustrates that "free will" is not necessary to select between available options.

Consciousness provides additional information. That additional information is used in the selection between options; if that information wasn't available, the deterministic selection process would be different. The selection process does not require free will.

The only reason I can see for you to miss this point is if you conflate consciousness and "free will."

Quote:

Question: What aren't you getting?

Lots of things, but mostly I'm not getting why you have such a difficult time understanding that "free will" is not necessary for consciousness.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:When

nigelTheBold wrote:
When discussing the differences in selecting among options, the only difference between an ameoba and a human is the amount of information processed when selecting an option.

I expect you to answer the following question that goes to the crux of the problem and which you conveniently evaded in your last post:

Is an amoeba conscious? If not, then why not?

If the only difference between an amoeba and a human is the AMOUNT OF INFORMATION that is PROCESSED, then what exactly is the causal role of consciousness?  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I expect you

Paisley wrote:

I expect you to answer the following question that goes to the crux of the problem and which you conveniently evaded in your last post:

Is an amoeba conscious? If not, then why not?

If the only difference between an amoeba and a human is the AMOUNT OF INFORMATION that is PROCESSED, then what exactly is the causal role of consciousness?  

Evading questions? That never happens around here! Speaking of which, you still have at least one outstanding question from me that you've evaded at least three times. Funny you should be scolding me about evasion.

I thought this was obvious from my last post, so I didn't bother answering this question directly. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought.

The role of consciousness is in providing information about how the environment affects the organism. An amoeba simply reacts to simuli. A human knows both what the stimulus is, and how the stimulus affects the person. This is information that goes into the selection of one option from many.

There's also the information about what options are available, too, which helps. This is also information an amoeba doesn't have.

So, no, an amoeba is not conscious, as it is unaware of the consequences to itself of its environment. It merely reacts.

Now, you are saying that in my worldview, humans simply react as well. And: that's what I'm saying, too. I agree with that. The difference is, consciousness (self-awareness) provides us with information about how the environment affects us, and how each known option affects us, and so on. All this information influences our "simple" reaction. We would not react the same if we didn't have knowledge of how an action affects us.

So, let's see where this all breaks down for you. I will ask a series of questions. You can simply say "agree" or "disagree."

1 - There are often many courses of action (options) available to an organism at any given time.

2 - One of these options must be taken (even if that option is to take no action at all).

3 - Free will is not required to select from among the options (for instance, random* selection).

4 - Some options are more "ideal" than others (result in a more-beneficial outcome)

5 - Information about each option is useful in selecting the ideal option.

6 - Consciousness provides an organism with information concerning the effects of an option.

7 - An organism that is aware of the effects of an option will be more able to select an ideal option.

8 - An organism that is more able to select an ideal option is more likely to survive than an organism which is less able to select an ideal option.

 

I believe the your answers will be enlightening, and demonstrate exactly where we diverge. In any case, I believe I've explained my position. I suspect there's nothing more to say.

 

[EDIT addendum]

* Here, "random" may be any deterministic, stochastic selection method such as flipping a coin or rolling a million dice. I point this out only to preclude quibbling about how I'm presupposing free will in my use of the word "random."

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Another

Paisley wrote:

Another scenario using pseudo-code....

"Select a number between 1 and 10" <== "computer no can do" (well, a computer cannot do it in reality unless this is a quantum computer and we acknowledge that quantum events are truly indeterminate...in which case you are arguing against materialism).

What are you talking about? Of course computers can generate numbers on command. I suppose that by 'select' you mean 'generate,' because you need a selection criteria to select a number. That may be just a semantics problem though.

For that matter, even if you really meant 'select' and not 'generate,' that is still wrong as you can give a computer a criteria to use to select numbers and it will start selecting them.

Here it is for C:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
                                                                                               
main(int ac, char **av)
{
  double x;
  unsigned seed;
  
  if (ac > 0) {
    sscanf(av[1],"%u", &seed);
    srand(seed);
  }
  
  x = rand()/(RAND_MAX+1.0);

printf("%g\n",x);
}

 

And here it is for MATLAB:


x = rand(1)

Every programming language has a way to generate numbers on command. Those are just two examples that I know about.

 

More importantly, why do you keep repeating the lie that quantum events are not materialistic? I took a three quarter course that was partially about quantum mechanics. I'm afraid that it was very narrow in what it taught us (it was focused on statistical mechanics for use by chemists), but I think that I understand a few basic concepts in quantum mechanics. I doubt that you will even try to substantiate your claim that QM is evidence against materialism. Here is my prediction: you will restate that QM means that the universe is not materialistic, and then pretend that is an argument in your favor rather than a naked assertion.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Every

Jormungander wrote:
Every programming language has a way to generate numbers on command. Those are just two examples that I know about.

Yes, I am quite aware of this fact. Most programming languages have some built-in random number function.  

Jormungander wrote:
More importantly, why do you keep repeating the lie that quantum events are not materialistic? I took a three quarter course that was partially about quantum mechanics. I'm afraid that it was very narrow in what it taught us (it was focused on statistical mechanics for use by chemists), but I think that I understand a few basic concepts in quantum mechanics. I doubt that you will even try to substantiate your claim that QM is evidence against materialism. Here is my prediction: you will restate that QM means that the universe is not materialistic, and then pretend that is an argument in your favor rather than a naked assertion.

I have never taken a college course in QM. That being said, I do understand the philosophical implications of quantum indeterminism and it would appear that you do not. Simply doing the math without properly thinking about the implications is the culprit (IOW, you're not really thinking). Why? Because you made the same error in your thought-processes when you discussed the random number functions of common programming languages. Do you really think that a computer can actually select a number "randomly?" If your answer to this question is in the affirmative, then you clearly do not undertand the implications of what this would entail.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I have never

Paisley wrote:
I have never taken a college course in QM. That being said, I do understand the philosophical implications of quantum indeterminism
So... Paisley not understanding QM the science somehow grants Paisley an understanding of the philosophical implications of QM the science.


This would be why I can't take your arguments seriously.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:So...

JillSwift wrote:

So... Paisley not understanding QM the science somehow grants Paisley an understanding of the philosophical implications of QM the science.

This would be why I can't take your arguments seriously.

Most amazing is his ability to know the philosophic consequence of something that isn't even fully-defined, for which there are many competing hypotheses, and for which we can't claim ontological understanding.

But, that's about on-par with the rest of his philosophic understanding as well, so I reckon it's not that amazing.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I have never

Paisley wrote:

I have never taken a college course in QM. That being said, I do understand the philosophical implications of quantum indeterminism and it would appear that you do not. Simply doing the math without properly thinking about the implications is the culprit (IOW, you're not really thinking). Why? Because you made the same error in your thought-processes when you discussed the random number functions of common programming languages. Do you really think that a computer can actually select a number "randomly?" If your answer to this question is in the affirmative, then you clearly do not undertand the implications of what this would entail.

Yes, I understand that the term 'random number generator' is factually wrong. It is actually a deterministic number generator. Because, you know, we live in a deterministic universe. Computers can generate strings of numbers, and those numbers are not random. And for that matter, QM does not mean that the universe is non-materialistic.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:So...

JillSwift wrote:
So... Paisley not understanding QM the science somehow grants Paisley an understanding of the philosophical implications of QM the science.
 

This would be why I can't take your arguments seriously.

Who says that I don't understand QM? I simply stated that I didn't take a college course on the subject. I fail to see how this precludes me from understanding the implications of quantum indeterminism.

By the way, I suggest that if you intend to respond to my posts in the future that you do not speak of me in the third person. It's condescending and disrespectful.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Who says that

Paisley wrote:
Who says that I don't understand QM? I simply stated that I didn't take a college course on the subject. I fail to see how this precludes me from understanding the implications of quantum indeterminism.

By the way, I suggest that if you intend to respond to my posts in the future that you do not speak of me in the third person. It's condescending and disrespectful.

Paisley's failing to get any education on a subject wrought with nuance and alternative hypotheses does indeed preclude Paisley from having any real understanding of Quantum Mechanics, and thus from having in understanding of the philosophical implications.


JillSwift, on the other hand, has taken a few classes on the subject and understands that quantum indeterminacy is as much a part of the material universe as what results from that indeterminacy (aka, matter & energy).

We shal speak of anyone using the third person, especially when we are not directly addressing the person in question and are making a comment to others involved in the thread. We so decree it. *royal harumph*

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Well then this whole

Well then this whole 'knowledge of QM' thing can be easily verified.

 

 

Given the wavefunction

 

Y=((a/SQRT(pi))1/2 )exp(-(a2x2/2))

 

 

Where exp(u)=eu

 

Show that it is normalized.

 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1150
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Stop dodging, or stop posting

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Given the wavefunction

Y=((a/SQRT(pi))1/2 )exp(-(a2x2/2))

Where exp(u)=eu

Show that it is normalized. 

I think it best that paisley not make another post until paisley has responded to this problem.  Failure to respond to this problem will confirm that paisley does not know what paisley is talking about when paisley uses QM to justify whatever paisley is currently asserting.

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cap? I don't recognise that

Cap? I don't recognise that wave function; is "Y" a typing shorthand fopr "Ѱ", and "a" a shorthand for "⍺"?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Cap? I don't

JillSwift wrote:

Cap? I don't recognise that wave function; is "Y" a typing shorthand fopr "Ѱ", and "a" a shorthand for "⍺"?

 

a is a constant and I couldn't type 'psi symbol' so I just used 'Y'

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:a is a

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
a is a constant and I couldn't type 'psi symbol' so I just used 'Y'
Kk, thankies!


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:

I expect you to answer the following question that goes to the crux of the problem and which you conveniently evaded in your last post:

Is an amoeba conscious? If not, then why not?

If the only difference between an amoeba and a human is the AMOUNT OF INFORMATION that is PROCESSED, then what exactly is the causal role of consciousness?

The role of consciousness is in providing information about how the environment affects the organism. An amoeba simply reacts to simuli. A human knows both what the stimulus is, and how the stimulus affects the person. This is information that goes into the selection of one option from many.

There's also the information about what options are available, too, which helps. This is also information an amoeba doesn't have.

So, no, an amoeba is not conscious, as it is unaware of the consequences to itself of its environment. It merely reacts.

Now, you are saying that in my worldview, humans simply react as well. And: that's what I'm saying, too. I agree with that. The difference is, consciousness (self-awareness) provides us with information about how the environment affects us, and how each known option affects us, and so on. All this information influences our "simple" reaction. We would not react the same if we didn't have knowledge of how an action affects us.

It would appear that you are now changing the terms of your argument. Previously, you argued that "the only difference between an amoeba and a human is the amount of information processed when selecting an option."

The keyword is "amount." On your view, the only difference between insentient information processing and sentient information processing is the amount of processing involved. Now, you are saying that conscious information processing produces more information. Be that as it may, I don't think this really changes anything. Information comes in as input. The information is processed. And information is generated (or produced) as output. Whether the information processing is conscious or not has no bearing on how much information can be processed and how much information can be produced. Obviously, an amoeba is processing and producing information. If an amoeba does not have subjective awareness, then the amoeba qualifies as a less complex "robot without consciousness." Why hasn't nature selected more complex "robots without consciouness?" Or perhaps she has (e.g. I don't know whether you consider earthworms to have conscious experience....perhaps you don't because they don't process and produce enough information?).

nigelTheBold wrote:
So, let's see where this all breaks down for you. I will ask a series of questions. You can simply say "agree" or "disagree."

1 - There are often many courses of action (options) available to an organism at any given time.

2 - One of these options must be taken (even if that option is to take no action at all).

3 - Free will is not required to select from among the options (for instance, random* selection).

4 - Some options are more "ideal" than others (result in a more-beneficial outcome)

5 - Information about each option is useful in selecting the ideal option.

6 - Consciousness provides an organism with information concerning the effects of an option.

7 - An organism that is aware of the effects of an option will be more able to select an ideal option.

8 - An organism that is more able to select an ideal option is more likely to survive than an organism which is less able to select an ideal option.

I disagree with items six and seven. The bottom line is that an insentient information processing system (or should I say stimulus-response system?) can perform the same foregoing functions. I fail to see how consciousness changes anything. If everything is predetermined by the laws of physics (excluding quantum indeterminism) and chemistry, then there really is nothing left for consciousness to do but to experience life (i.e. electrochemical reactions) as it mechanically unfolds.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:I think it

zarathustra wrote:
I think it best that paisley not make another post until paisley has responded to this problem.  Failure to respond to this problem will confirm that paisley does not know what paisley is talking about when paisley uses QM to justify whatever paisley is currently asserting.

In this particular thread, the only thing I said in relevance to QM was that a computer cannot perform truly random functions unless the computer is somehow linked to quantum events (assuming that quantum events are truly random). If you disgree with this, then please share with us the nature of the disagreement. If not, then quit seeking to hijack my thread.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Well

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Well then this whole 'knowledge of QM' thing can be easily verified.

 

 

Given the wavefunction

 

Y=((a/SQRT(pi))1/2 )exp(-(a2x2/2))

 

 

Where exp(u)=eu

 

Show that it is normalized.

 

 

Here is my lazy way of doing this using MATLAB:

First I throw everything into MATLAB:

a=1;
syms x;

Y=sqrt(a/sqrt(pi))*exp(-((a^2)*(x^2)/2));

int(Y^2, x, -inf, inf)

 

'syms x;' means that x will be treated as a variable

I set 'a' to one seeing as it is just any arbitrary constant

This: 'int(Y^2, x, -inf, inf)' will take the integral of Y squared with respect to x from negative infinity to positive infinity.

 

Here is what it looks like in MATLAB:

>> a=1;
syms x;
Y=sqrt(a/sqrt(pi))*exp(-((a^2)*(x^2)/2));
int(Y^2, x, -inf, inf)
 
ans =
 
178798816056707020814412389409/316912650057057350374175801344*pi^(1/2)
 
 
>> 178798816056707020814412389409/316912650057057350374175801344*pi^(1/2)

ans =

    1.0000

 

So we see that the integral of the wave function squared with respect to x from -inf to +inf is equal to 1. That means that the wave function has been normalized. Forgive the lazy MATLAB way of doing this. I have largely given up on solving integrals and instead throw everything into the computer. And I do feel just a little embarrassed that I had to get my old physical chemistry textbook in order to verify that I was doing this correctly. If we wanted to make this hard we would need to use a wave function that required spherical coordinates to solve. Putting a triple integral into MATLAB would be a bit harder. But then I suppose that I could replace the other two integrals (the ones for theta and phi in spherical coordinates) by 2 and 2PI in order to take the lazy way out.

Did I pass the quantum mechanics test?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Did I

Jormungander wrote:

Did I pass the quantum mechanics test?

 

That question was for Paisley

 

and minus 50 points for cheating by using MATLAB

 

 

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

Did I pass the quantum mechanics test?

 

That question was for Paisley

 

and minus 50 points for cheating by using MATLAB

Paisley has already admitted to never having studied QM. So he can not possibly pass any test that we devise for him. He is bullshiting us when he brings up QM.

And as an engineer I will never apologize for using MATLAB. I have seen to many integrals that can't be solved by hand to bother trying any more. MATLAB never fails to solve them, but I don't know how to solve most. Also most integrals can not be solved by hand. So take the certain path to sucessfully solving them and use MATLAB.

So I give myself +50 points for original use of programming to solve this problem and negate your -50 points.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Yes, I

Jormungander wrote:
Yes, I understand that the term 'random number generator' is factually wrong. It is actually a deterministic number generator. Because, you know, we live in a deterministic universe. Computers can generate strings of numbers, and those numbers are not random. And for that matter, QM does not mean that the universe is non-materialistic.

Stop the pretentious nonsense. You didn't know that the random number generator was actually predetermined. If you did, then you wouldn't have taken issue with my post.

Concerning QM, if quantum indeterminism truly represents the state of affairs, then it implies that physical events are occurring uncaused. You can attempt to redefine materialism to be compatible with this. But this is nothing more than a display of psychological denial.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1150
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:In this

Paisley wrote:


In this particular thread, the only thing I said in relevance to QM was that a computer cannot perform truly random functions unless the computer is somehow linked to quantum events (assuming that quantum events are truly random). If you disgree with this, then please share with us the nature of the disagreement. If not, then quit seeking to hijack my thread.



paisley will please acknowledge that paisley has used QM across several of the threads that paisley has started in regard to materialism.  It is time for paisley to actually demonstrate exactly how much paisley knows about what paisley is talking about.  And paisley ought not to accuse me of hijacking paisley's thread, as paisley hijacks paisley's own threads well enough through paisley's incessant dodging, ad hoc arguments, and outright self-contradictions.
 

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Most

nigelTheBold wrote:
Most amazing is his ability to know the philosophic consequence of something that isn't even fully-defined, for which there are many competing hypotheses, and for which we can't claim ontological understanding.

But, that's about on-par with the rest of his philosophic understanding as well, so I reckon it's not that amazing.

This thread is not about QM. Please don't hijack the thread. This is simply a diversionary tactic because you cannot account for why consciousness was naturally selected. All these "brilliant" atheists can't account for why consciousness was naturally selected. It's really quite pathetic.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Jormungander

Paisley wrote:

Jormungander wrote:
Yes, I understand that the term 'random number generator' is factually wrong. It is actually a deterministic number generator. Because, you know, we live in a deterministic universe. Computers can generate strings of numbers, and those numbers are not random. And for that matter, QM does not mean that the universe is non-materialistic.

Stop the pretentious nonsense. You didn't know that the random number generator was actually predetermined. If you did, then you wouldn't have taken issue with my post.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15754

Follow that link and see post #16. I have already been over this on this website. I have known for years now that 'random' number generators are deterministic. Here is what I said on this back in November:

I wrote:

Random number generators are a misnomer, they are not random in any way, shape or form. They run a seed value through a complex function to get the first number, and then run that number though a function to get another number and so on until a string of non-random numbers is created. This process is 100% deterministic. I really don't understand what is meant by 'affecting' the number generator. If the number generator was run 20 times, each time with the same seed value, then the 20 'random' sets of numbers produced would be identical.

So why don't you stop with the pretentious nonsense.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:This thread is

Paisley wrote:
This thread is not about QM. Please don't hijack the thread. This is simply a diversionary tactic because you cannot account for why consciousness was naturally selected. All these "brilliant" atheists can't account for why consciousness was naturally selected. It's really quite pathetic.
Paisley's only intent here is to get a "GOTCHA!" sort of win. In doing so, Paisley will feel better and more secure in Paisley's god delusion.

The way in which Paisley carefully re-defines words and phrases, as well as deliberately misunderstanding posts, clearly points to his disinterest in discussion. Paisley's constant re-iteration of the point he wants us to concede to clearly points out the "GOTCHA!" he's looking for and fails to find.

 

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Follow

Jormungander wrote:
Follow that link and see post #16. I have already been over this on this website. I have known for years now that 'random' number generators are deterministic. Here is what I said on this back in November:

If you know that random number generators are really deterministic, then why are you taking issue with my previous post? On second thought, forget it. I am not going to engage in a tit for tat game with you. Unless you can address the question I posed in the OP, then don't bother posting. You're just wasting my time.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead