Choice.

[lifegazer]

The other night I asked somebody a question. I asked:

"Do you know what distinguishes a serf from a God?"

... The answer I gave him was "Choice.".
... Meaning that God, not being a serf to anyone or anything, is free to make choices.

I thought it was worthy of discussion.
There are two things to discuss here. Firstly, does anything in this existence make definite choices? Secondly, is it possible for anything but an omnipotent God to express choices?

My answers to those questions are "Yes" and "No"... as you might expect. Though I do have reasons for thinking so. Those reasons will come up in the conversation, I suppose.
So, what's your opinion? Please explain anything you say with reason.

[The GM]

Yes and yes.

I chose to post, therefore I did.
By some people's reckoning, God chose to leave us to our own devices, therefore, it did.

editted to add for clarity: By leaving us alone, we have no other path except for that of choice.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The GM
Yes and yes.

I chose to post, therefore I did.

Well I'm glad you chose "yes" for your first answer. Saves me some work.
However, if there is no God - no primal-cause for ALL effects/events in existence, then everything in existence is a serf - an effect. So explain why you think an absolute serf can exhibit absolute/definite choice.

By some people's reckoning, God chose to leave us to our own devices, therefore, it did.

Does this mean that you believe in the existence of God?

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]The other night I asked somebody a question. I asked:

"Do you know what distinguishes a serf from a God?"

... The answer I gave him was "Choice.".
... Meaning that God, not being a serf to anyone or anything, is free to make choices.

Yes indeed, and although you can't bring yourself to even mention who, or dare post again in that thread because of the absolute mess you got yourself into, here I am again to remind you of what that means:

I have freedom of choice.

Thus I have the freedom to choose to ridicule your philosophy.

Which I'm going to do again.

Secondly, is it possible for anything but an omnipotent God to express choices?

And you can't complain about it, because it's your God that chooses to do this to you.

But anyway, got that whorde of interested observers lined up yet? Complained to the evil JREF yet? Just because YOU want to try and forget last nights little lies and temper tantrums and incoherant ideas, doesn't mean that I make the same choice as you... No, I choose not to forget. Which means your God before the dream began chose to trash all your threads via the dream part that is me. Why you'd worship such a God is beyond me, but there we go. I'm here, I'm trashing, love me for it!

[P.S.A.]

Oh, and today's "Laugh at the Ego that is Lifegazer" link is;

http://hometown.aol.com/recogswell/

Bishop George Berkeley argued most of what you do 200 years ago.

He has Believers though. God, for some reason, chooses not to believe in Himself as envisioned by you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
I have freedom of choice.

Thus I have the freedom to choose to ridicule your philosophy.

Which I'm going to do again.

So that's a "yes" to the first question then.

And then... nothing.
Perhaps you need to ponder the questions I asked GM:

"However, if there is no God - no primal-cause for ALL effects/events in existence, then everything in existence is a serf - an effect. So explain why you think an absolute serf can exhibit absolute/definite choice."

Well serf? Explain to this forum how you exhibit the ability to choose if you are not God.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Oh, and today's "Laugh at the Ego that is Lifegazer" link is;

http://hometown.aol.com/recogswell/

Bishop George Berkeley argued most of what you do 200 years ago.

He has Believers though. God, for some reason, chooses not to believe in Himself as envisioned by you. From another thread:

Originally posted by RandFan
Not even theists AFAIK take any of this serious. I dare say that out of all of the forums and thousands of posts, gazerism has not produced a single convert. Further there is not a single new concept. He has not significantly altered or advanced philosophical discussion. At best, and I say that liberally, he has offered a slightly different variation to a theme.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Explain to this forum how you exhibit the ability to choose if you are not God. I am or I am not god. I choose to accept that reality is real and that I am not a god because there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Choosing to believe that I am a god will change nothing. It has not changed you. You can do nothing that I can't do.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
I am or I am not god.

You have philosophical genius bursting out of you. I can tell.

I choose to accept that reality is real and that I am not a god because there is no reason to believe otherwise.

None of this is relevant to the OP. The question is can any part of existence make choices if there's no God in existence? If so, explain how. If not, then you are God.

Choosing to believe that I am a god will change nothing. It has not changed you. You can do nothing that I can't do.
You don't know anything about what I can or cannot do. You only know what I won't do.
Secondly, if you think that Only God exists is an irrelevancy to one's life, then you aren't really very bright.

If you're choosing not to take these discussions seriously because you find nothing of significance in the fact that you are really God, then you must have a very low IQ. If not, then take this discussion seriously.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You have philosophical genius bursting out of you. I can tell. Whether I am god or not has nothing to do with choice.

You propose a relationship of "choice" to god using the notion of dominion or authority. Hence you use the term serf. Which is interesting because the notion of the Jeudeo Christian god is founded in part from the culture that existed during the time the concept was conceived. There were in days past feudal lords. They controlled those who were under their control otherwise known as serfs. That is why we have such imagery as "judgment bar of god" and "throne" and "king", etc. But this has nothing to do with a devine being and choice.

None of this is relevant to the OP. The question is can any part of existence make choices if there's no God in existence? If so, explain how. If not, then you are God. Non sequitur.

You don't know anything about what I can or cannot do. You only know what I won't do.
Secondly, if you think that Only God exists is an irrelevancy to one's life, then you aren't really very bright. I don't absolutely know what you can't do. I am certain that what you won't do is because you can't. Now please continue to argue from ignorance.

If you're choosing not to take these discussions seriously because you find nothing of significance in the fact that you are really God, then you must have a very low IQ. If not, then take this discussion seriously. There is significance in the fact that I am really Superman or Spiderman or even Underdog.

Just because something COULD be significant if it were true does not make it significant.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So that's a "yes" to the first question then.

And then... nothing.
Perhaps you need to ponder the questions I asked GM:

"However, if there is no God - no primal-cause for ALL effects/events in existence, then everything in existence is a serf - an effect. So explain why you think an absolute serf can exhibit absolute/definite choice."

Well serf? Explain to this forum how you exhibit the ability to choose if you are not God.

Stop being so stupid. I already pointed out that if I accept your conclusion, and that I am God, THEN ITS YOUR OWN GOD THAT IS TRASHING YOUR THREADS.

For a middle aged man, you sure don't show any signs of ever having learnt anything during your long, and wasted years... It doesn't matter how often you avoid answering the point, everyone else can see that even if you accept your conclusion that no one but God can make a free choice, then the facts that your philosophy fails to win any converts doesn't change... it just means that it's God who's chosen for it to fail, rather than a materialistic world which abandons you.

And I'm not a Serf am I..? How on earth do you think I'll be insulted by being called something you also claim I cannot possibly be? I'm God, pretending to a serf at most. Your arguments are about as convincing as me saying "So you agree I'm right then, you semi detached bungalow?"...

But can't you even see that it doesn't matter whether you claim I'm God making a choice, or a serf unable to make a choice, because I'm going to keep on trashing your threads... and you can neither perform a miracle and stop me from doing it, nor explain within the boundaries of your "philosophy" why I should do anything else.

Seek psychiatric help Lifegazer; You've lost touch completely with anything even remotely sensible. And the world moves on happily without you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
Whether I am god or not has nothing to do with choice.

Explain your statements. This is philosophy. I've already given you a hint in my previous posts that serfs have no choice... yet all you do is assert facts that will support your self-serving bias and evade discussing these profound issues. What's wrong with you?

You propose a relationship of "choice" to god using the notion of dominion or authority. Hence you use the term serf. Which is interesting because the notion of the Jeudeo Christian god is founded in part from the culture that existed during the time the concept was conceived. There were in days past feudal lords. They controlled those who were under their control otherwise known as serfs. That is why we have such imagery as "judgment bar of god" and "throne" and "king", etc. But this has nothing to do with a devine being and choice.

This is crap. Really. What relevance do the Jew/Christian God or feudal lords have to do with my OP?

"The question is can any part of existence make choices if there's no God in existence? If so, explain how. If not, then you are God."

Non sequitur.

What?
Explain to this forum why the response "Non sequitur." is not a nonsensical retort to questions asked of you.

I don't absolutely know what you can't do. I am certain that what you won't do is because you can't.

You "don't absolutely know" but are "certain that...".

Randfan, you are making a fool of yourself in this post.
If I was like P.S.A., I would just gloat upon the fact that I have outsmarted you and made you look like a mug. But I'm not like him. The reason why I'm here is to try and open your mind and expand your consciousness to a new level of thought.
Listen to me Rand, this is not a game or a competition. It's not like a football game where you do whatever you can to win the game, regardless of whether your actions are right. This is a philosophical discussion. The prize isn't egotistical glory for you and your team of skeptics/atheists. The prize is making sense of existence and proceeding from there.

I've come across people like you a thousand times or more. Do you think that the only reason I'm here is to score points over you and your team? Do you really think that I'd take three years of abuse and mockery in the hope that once, just once, I'd look smarter than the person I was talking to?

You misjudge me Rand, and so does everyone else. This has nothing to do with "lifegazer V's them". This, for me, is about the truth. But I can see from your response that "the truth" is the furthest thing from your mind. In fact, from your response, I can see that, for you, it's all about "us V's lifegazer, whatever it takes to win the game".

There is significance in the fact that I am really Superman or Spiderman or even Underdog.

You're not stupid. And I know you understand the points I made. That's why I know that this nonsensical statement is just an evasive manoeuvre. That's why I know that you're "playing the game" and don't give a sh** about "the truth".

Fair enough. If that's your game, then play it. But be aware that I know what your game is. Be aware that I know that "the truth" comes second to winning the game, for you.

Just because something COULD be significant if it were true does not make it significant.
But you said that it's NOT significant - even if it is true.
Evidence:
"Choosing to believe that I am a god will change nothing.".

You're not very good at being very bad, Randfan. You have to make your mind up whether you are intent on being like P.S.A. or whether you are intent on searching for the truth.
At least P.S.A. has openly declared his intent not to take these discussions seriously and just "go for the game at all costs.". For that, if nothing else, I respect him.

[lifegazer]

error - mods can delete

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]But God has freedom of choice

Yes he does. Which is the point. Come on Lifegazer, it's really, really, REALLY simple. The world is evil. You know that, and despite what you claim, we all know that too. BUT WHY? Why has God chose this? I don't mean the existance of abstract evil... I mean why is the world so heavily slanted against your "philosophy" in particular? Not the material reasons... why GOD wants it to be so.

How long do you think the world actually has existed for? 6,000 years? Billions? Let's say you somehow manage to convert every single person alive today to your "philosophy"... let's grant you 6 billion converts; what percentage of the number of people who have ever lived across Earth's span? What guarantee have you got that as soon as you are dead, people won't forget everything you ever said? Come on, you and I both know the odds are enormously stacked against you... So you have to explain WHY this is.

And it's not just the sheer numerical odds; Why has God decided to allow evil right now, whilst his prophet walks the earth? Why does God allow me to crap all over your threads here? Or people like me to ban you and laugh at you and frustrate you ever step of the way ? God has not only set you up with a herculean task, he's making sure every single encounter you have is tilted against you... he's made sure you cannot communicate with your fellow man, that they are predisposed to not listen anyway, and he's made them enjoy your suffering too.

Saying God makes a choice doesn't answer this, because that just BEGS the question as to why he's made THIS choice. God knew I'd do this before I ever decided to wind you up... SO WHY WAS HE HAPPY FOR ME TO DO SO? Why has he given me, and countless billions like me, far more power and ability to trash your ideas, and you personally too, than he's given you to awaken Earth to it's own Godhood?

I don't believe in your God Lifegazer, but even if I did, I would refuse to embrace my own Godhood because you cannot make it even remotely appealing to me. Let me explain ultimately why; you could, right now, be doing ANONYMOUS miracles. No one even needs to know why they are being done, much less who is doing it. Feed the hungry with spontaneously appearing bread... And do you know what would happen? People would not only begin to question establishment assumptions... They'd be far more open to the idea of God existing in general. You aren't the only Prophet out there LG... but do you know what? THERE ISN'T A SINGLE MIRACLE FROM ANY OF THEM, EVER. Not one example of anything which makes me think "hey, there's something both powerful and good out there". And why would I want to be that sort of God? Despite what you think, I would dearly love for the world to be a better place... But I've yet to see a single religion which can offer a way of MAKING it better that I can't do with my own bare hands.

Your "philosophy" offers no answer as to why there is evil... indeed it offers ever more alienation from all the things that make life bearable... and in return, I get what? The believe that I can perform miracles I can never, ever use? Who the hell would want to experience life like that?

And yet, according to you, God has chosen this for you, and for the entire world throughout all of human history. And you can't offer a convincing reason as to WHY. This is why no one is taking you seriously Lifegazer. All your musings and desperate intellectual scrabblings aren't addressing the key question... and until you can, you'll never find any happiness, let alone converts.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Stop being so stupid. I already pointed out that if I accept your conclusion, and that I am God, THEN ITS YOUR OWN GOD THAT IS TRASHING YOUR THREADS.

Okay, then we're going along with the fact that you are accepting my conclusion.
... In that case, the question is: why, if you TRULY accept my conclusion, would you trash my threads?

Well, everyone knows that you haven't truly accepted my conclusion... so, your actions (trashing my threads) have nothing to do with that premise.
... Quite the contrary: you're trashing my threads because you DON'T believe my conclusions.

That's what CHOICE is all about: making decisions and acting by them.

... And so, what we establish here is that your choice has been not to accept my philosophy that you are God... and that your reactions are a mirror of that decision/choice. So please, don't pretend that your reaction is a consequence of accepting my philosophy.

For a middle aged man, you sure don't show any signs of ever having learnt anything during your long, and wasted years...

Time is relative and one's judgement of how one finds fulfilment in time is subjective. All subjective opinions of "wasted years" are dependent upon what you think the purpose of life/time is. So please, next time you publicly condemn my wasted years, please justify this claim.

It doesn't matter how often you avoid answering the point, everyone else can see that even if you accept your conclusion that no one but God can make a free choice, then the facts that your philosophy fails to win any converts doesn't change... it just means that it's God who's chosen for it to fail, rather than a materialistic world which abandons you.

Listen good: Revolution doesn't happen overnight. In fact, it doesn't even matter if I don't win a convert until 200 years after my death. Do you realise how long 3 years is, in the scheme of things?
I'm not worried about what is or what is not happening now. Given the enormity of the task, I'm just happy to sow the seeds of change. Time is of no relevance to me. I'm just doing what needs to be done. The plants will flower when they flower.

I'm going to keep on trashing your threads... and you can neither perform a miracle and stop me from doing it, nor explain within the boundaries of your "philosophy" why I should do anything else.

Slavery was something I wanted abolished by universal consent, not a miracle. The same principle applies to your mindset.

Seek psychiatric help Lifegazer; You've lost touch completely with anything even remotely sensible. And the world moves on happily without you.
Don't lie to this forum that the world is happy. You might think you're happy, but don't disgrace yourself by speaking for the world.
As for psychiatric help: well, show me a psychiatrist that knows the truth about existence and I will gladly be his subject. Conversely, show me a psychiatrist who assumes the truth about existence and I will kick him in the nuts for having the gall to lecture me about what's wrong with me.

You have no class... no integrity... and no morals. You're trying to disjoint my threads because of 3 reasons:-
(1) You hate me for being smarter than you without the efforts you have made.
(2) You hate my philosophy because it destroys the very fabric of the life of P.S.A..
(3) You think this is a game: "us V's them"... and you are doing whatever it takes to win the game.

The things I said to Rand apply moreso to you. However, with you, I know my pleas are worthless. I'm just using you to expose the folly of ideals that continue to feed upon slavery.

People think slavery was abolished in the 19th century. Ha friggin ha. Not. It's alive and kickin and the masters have become more politically correct... as well as tactically acute.

Yet, given all that, I still think that you are a sheep. You aren't smart enough to be a sheppard. That's why you rely on humour and abuse to kill wolves such as myself.

You're fighting a losing battle son. You don't even know that you were put on the battlefield for the glory of the opposition.
Yet still, until the last moment, I allow you to choose to change your mind.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Explain your statements. This is philosophy. I've already given you a hint in my previous posts that serfs have no choice... yet all you do is assert facts that will support your self-serving bias and evade discussing these profound issues. What's wrong with you? The statement speaks for itself.

This is crap. Really. What relevance do the Jew/Christian God or feudal lords have to do with my OP? Serf is meaningless as it is used. Feudal lords had "serfs".

What?
Explain to this forum why the response "Non sequitur." is not a nonsensical retort to questions asked of you. It is ridiculous to assert that if I can't explain something then I am god. That is a NON SEQUITUR.

You "don't absolutely know" but are "certain that...". So damn certain I would bet any amount of money on it but I woldn't bet my life on it. GOT IT A-Hole Not absolute but damn, damn certain.

Randfan, you are making a fool of yourself in this post.
If I was like P.S.A., I would just gloat upon the fact that I have outsmarted you and made you look like a mug. But I'm not like him. The reason why I'm here is to try and open your mind and expand your consciousness to a new level of thought.
Listen to me Rand, this is not a game or a competition. It's not like a football game where you do whatever you can to win the game, regardless of whether your actions are right. This is a philosophical discussion. The prize isn't egotistical glory for you and your team of skeptics/atheists. The prize is making sense of existence and proceeding from there.

I've come across people like you a thousand times or more. Do you think that the only reason I'm here is to score points over you and your team? Do you really think that I'd take three years of abuse and mockery in the hope that once, just once, I'd look smarter than the person I was talking to? You have to my recollection never looked smarter than anyone here. You are narcissistic with delusions of grandeur. You are typical of lots of prophets and messiahs who troll the forum looking for deciples and believing that you are here to save the world. No one is impressed with you.

You misjudge me Rand, and so does everyone else. This has nothing to do with "lifegazer V's them". This, for me, is about the truth. But I can see from your response that "the truth" is the furthest thing from your mind. In fact, from your response, I can see that, for you, it's all about "us V's lifegazer, whatever it takes to win the game". Not all of us who are arguing with you agree. I have had strong disagreements with people who I happen to agree with in this instance. You suffer from some form of paranoia. You think we are united. We are not.

You're not stupid. And I know you understand the points I made. That's why I know that this nonsensical statement is just an evasive manoeuvre. That's why I know that you're "playing the game" and don't give a sh** about "the truth".

Fair enough. If that's your game, then play it. But be aware that I know what your game is. Be aware that I know that "the truth" comes second to winning the game, for you. Stow your sanctimonious BS. The statement is no more nonsensical than your ridiculous statement about me being god. You take yourself far too seriously.

But you said that it's NOT significant - even if it is true.
Evidence:
"Choosing to believe that I am a god will change nothing.". There is nothing inconsistent in my statements.

You're not very good at being very bad, Randfan. You have to make your mind up whether you are intent on being like P.S.A. or whether you are intent on searching for the truth.
At least P.S.A. has openly declared his intent not to take these discussions seriously and just "go for the game at all costs.". For that, if nothing else, I respect him. I'm not here for your respect. I'm here to discuss philosophy. I don't know who you are and I have no more reason to like or dislike you as I do anyone else on this fourm. There are a number of posters in this and other threads of yours who I disagree with in the politics forum. We have had strong discussions. We aren't out to get you. We care about debating the merits of ideas and perhaps to find the truth.

I have changed my mind about a number of things on this forum simply because I am an honest person and care about the truth.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm here to discuss philosophy... I have changed my mind about a number of things on this forum simply because I am an honest person and care about the truth.

Well in that case, you won't mind if I use your gaffes to show how not to go about finding the truth and how not to philosophise...

Whether I am god or not has nothing to do with choice.
... The statement speaks for itself.

Lesson 1.
You made a statement but haven't backed it up with any reason.
So, explain to this forum why you are God or not has nothing to do with choice. In a discussion such as this, it is not enough to parrot your beliefs and self-serving mantras.

"Explain to this forum why the response "Non sequitur." is not a nonsensical retort to questions asked of you."

It is ridiculous to assert that if I can't explain something then I am god. That is a NON SEQUITUR.

Lesson 2.
I asked you questions. The response "non sequitor" is a nonsensical retort to a question. Neither is a question an assertion.

So damn certain I would bet any amount of money on it but I woldn't bet my life on it. GOT IT A-Hole Not absolute but damn, damn certain.

Lesson 3.
Inadmissable. Incredulity - your gut feelings - are not enough to
make statements of fact in a discussion such as this.

You have to my recollection never looked smarter than anyone here. You are narcissistic with delusions of grandeur. You are typical of lots of prophets and messiahs who troll the forum looking for deciples and believing that you are here to save the world. No one is impressed with you.

Lesson 4.
Temper tantrums that are of no consequence to the discussion at-hand are meaningless and serve only to evade the discussion at-hand.

There is nothing inconsistent in my statements.

Lesson 5.
Analysis of error:

(1)"Choosing to believe that I am a god will change nothing.".

(2) "Just because something COULD be significant if it were true does not make it significant."

In '1', you asserted that the realisation "I am God" changes nothing. When I accused you of having a low IQ for making such an unfounded statement, you quickly changed stance to '2', which is inconsistent with '1' and which itself offers no explanation.

Really Rand, your posts are inconsistent with being here to discuss philosophy and being a honest person who cares about the truth.
I predict your response to this post will be similar to all your others, full of:
(1) Incredulities.
(2) Temper tantrums and ad hominums.
(3) Evasive manoeuvres.
(4) Unanswered questions and unfounded assertions.
(5) Inconsistencies.
(6) Irrelevancies - not sticking to the issues of the OP.

Prove me wrong Rand. Prove to me that you do care about the truth. Otherwise, given the evidence, I stick to what I said last night:
"I know that you're "playing the game" and don't give a sh** about "the truth"."

Either the truth, or 'Us V's lifegazer.'. Which is it to be Rand?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well in that case, you won't mind if I use your gaffes to show how not to go about finding the truth and how not to philosophise...

Lesson 1.
You made a statement but haven't backed it up with any reason.
So, explain to this forum why you are God or not has nothing to do with choice. In a discussion such as this, it is not enough to parrot your beliefs and self-serving mantras.


If you are right then he has no ability to choose therefore he cannot choose to believe in your philosophy. As has been explained to you several times.


Lesson 2.
I asked you questions. The response "non sequitor" is a nonsensical retort to a question. Neither is a question an assertion.

Why answer the silly question when the answer is being used as a non sequitur?



Lesson 3.
Inadmissable. Incredulity - your gut feelings - are not enough to
make statements of fact in a discussion such as this.

Lesson 4.
Temper tantrums that are of no consequence to the discussion at-hand are meaningless and serve only to evade the discussion at-hand.

The will you choose to stop swearing at people?



Lesson 5.
Analysis of error:

(1)"Choosing to believe that I am a god will change nothing.".

(2) "Just because something COULD be significant if it were true does not make it significant."

In '1', you asserted that the realisation "I am God" changes nothing. When I accused you of having a low IQ for making such an unfounded statement, you quickly changed stance to '2', which is inconsistent with '1' and which itself offers no explanation.

Those of us who speak english have to trouble with those two statements.
I.e. your claim is neither true nor significant



Either the truth, or 'Us V's lifegazer.'. Which is it to be Rand?

I return the question to you. When you have been proven wrong has your ego ever let you acknowledge your error or has it left you arguing the ridiculous? For instance your claim that words are capable of reasoning? That the speed of sound is constant? Your patent misunderstanding of every aspect of science?

And as I have asked several times - if "lifegazer" is not important why were you hysterical about me posting your full name?

You should print off what you post and read through it every so often just so you could try to sound reasonable sort of consistent.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... The question is can any part of existence make choices if there's no God in existence? If so, explain how. If not, then you are God...
First, apparently you assume that a God can make choices. Can you know this given the fact that at this point we don't know that God is us?
Also, the last part of the quote is nonsensical: It says that if there is no God in existence and I can't make choices, I must be God, who doesn't exist.:con2:
I think I know what you mean however, so...

Let's assume God exists, has the ability to make choices and let's assume that all people have minds of their own and are separate from God and God's mind for now.
Since we can have no sound knowledge of how minds work there's two possibilities concerning minds.
(1) Minds have the ability to choose.
(2) They don't (but they only think they do).

There's your answer. Either yes or no.

"Yes" if one believes what I think Interesting Ian believes:
- Minds are causers of events. Free will (choice) exists because minds exist outside the realm of (at least contemporary) physics. So you could say that there are no "serfs" among minds in this case.

"No" if one believes what I believe:
- Minds are basically deterministic, (assuming that quantum phisics is wrong about uncaused events) and the illusion of choice exists only because the variables that determine your choice are too numerous, and the output is principally unpredictable by the mind itself, because the system inbetween is highly chaotic (Which means the output is very sensitive to small differences in the input).

Neither of these two answers imply in any way that I should be God if I can make choices.

Edited for clarification

[jmercer]

Originally posted by lifegazer
error - mods can delete

God made ANOTHER error???

:dl:

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I predict your response to this post will be similar to all your others, full of:
(1) Incredulities.
(2) Temper tantrums and ad hominums.[sic]
(3) Evasive manoeuvres.
(4) Unanswered questions and unfounded assertions.
(5) Inconsistencies.
(6) Irrelevancies - not sticking to the issues of the OP.


...said the kettle to the...

err...

stainless steel frying pan?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well I'm glad you chose "yes" for your first answer. Saves me some work.
However, if there is no God - no primal-cause for ALL effects/events in existence, then everything in existence is a serf - an effect. So explain why you think an absolute serf can exhibit absolute/definite choice.



If God is ALL and ALL needs a primal-cause then God would require a primal-cause and that primal-cause would need a primal-cause and that would need a primal-cause .

If there is by your belief the need for a primal-cause or the effect is a "serf" then your God is a serf with no choice.

This is a self defeating belief.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You made a statement but haven't backed it up with any reason. A statement can in and of itself be reason. 2+2=4 That speaks for itself. I don't need to back it up with reason It IS REASON.

So, explain to this forum why you are God or not has nothing to do with choice. Nonsensical.

I asked you questions. The response "non sequitor" is a nonsensical retort to a question. Neither is a question an assertion. A.) No, it is a statement of fact. One does not follow the other.

B.) I explained why one does not follow the other. "It is ridiculous to assert that if I can't explain something then I am god."

Inadmissable. Incredulity - your gut feelings - are not enough to make statements of fact in a discussion such as this. I said it is NOT fact. However I have a demonstrable way to prove my point. I put up hard earned money and you fail to do what you claim.

Lesson 4.
Temper tantrums that are of no consequence to the discussion at-hand are meaningless and serve only to evade the discussion at-hand. Pot calling kettle.

(1)"Choosing to believe that I am a god will change nothing." A statement of fact. It can't, it doesn't and it won't. You are proof. You believe that you are god but you refuse to prove it because you can't.

(2) "Just because something COULD be significant if it were true does not make it significant." Simple logic. If I COULD fly that would be significant. That it WOULD if I COULD doesn't make it (the conjecture that I can fly) significant. If the moon blew up that WOULD be significant. That it WOULD does not make it significant. What is "it"? A hypothetical. Conjecture. Conjecture is not significant until it is realized.

So conjecture is not in and of itself significant. You are offering conjecture that is not significant. If the conjecture were true it would be significant. But that point of the conjecture would be significant if the point of the conjecture were true does not make the conjecture significant simply because it is conjecture.

Are you getting this?

In '1', you asserted that the realisation "I am God" changes nothing. Demonstrable. It changes nothing. You could prove that wrong but choose not to. Absent any evidence of change we must assume there is no change. QED

When I accused you of having a low IQ for making such an unfounded statement, you quickly changed stance to '2', which is inconsistent with '1' and which itself offers no explanation. I moved no goal posts. I stand by both.

(4) Unanswered questions and unfounded assertions. Pot calling kettle.....

How about THIS question? How does an omniscient being not know that its belief is wrong. I have asked it and asked it over and over but you refuse to answer. You are so hypocritical.

Either the truth, or 'Us V's lifegazer.'. Which is it to be Rand? False dilemma. You left out that you could be delusional and paranoid.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Let's assume God exists, has the ability to make choices and let's assume that all people have minds of their own and are separate from God and God's mind for now.

You can't assume God exists and that people - with their own minds - also exist. If God exists, then people are what God is thinking/perceiving/believing that it is.

"No" if one believes what I believe:
- Minds are basically deterministic, (assuming that quantum phisics is wrong about uncaused events) and the illusion of choice exists only because the variables that determine your choice are too numerous, and the output is principally unpredictable by the mind itself, because the system inbetween is highly chaotic (Which means the output is very sensitive to small differences in the input).

So, you don't believe that choice exists... that what appears to be a choice is in fact determined by factors to complex to fathom.

Neither of these two answers imply in any way that I should be God if I can make choices.

If we do have the ability to make choices, then we must be God. You don't address how or why a mind that can make choices can arise from a universe where there is no God or no choosing. If you did, I'm sure you'd begin to understand why this must be the case.

... It's similar to the argument about free-will: Either we do have free-will or we don't. If we do, then our actions (some of them at least) are independent of the universe. In this case, it's impossible to reconcile atheism with free-will. Likewise, it's impossible to reconcile atheism with the ability to choose.

However, you have said that you don't think we have the ability to choose anything. This is actually the wisest stance to choose if you want to defend your choice to remain an atheist, since it appears irrational that choice can exist without the existence of a God.
However, this presents problems for the atheist. Given that choices do not exist within the universe, he now must abandon the beliefs he has chosen. He now must abandon the choice to defend his beliefs. He now must abandon all plans that he has made for the short-term and long-term. He now must abandon all relationships - certainly all relationships formed outside of family - since choice to remain in those relationships which were formally chosen is now relinquished. Likewise, he must abandon all the possessions that he has chosen to gather.

In other words, those that believe that there are no choices in existence - regardless of the source of those choices - need to reconcile this belief with their own history of making choices.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
If God is ALL and ALL needs a primal-cause then God would require a primal-cause and that primal-cause would need a primal-cause and that would need a primal-cause .

If there is by your belief the need for a primal-cause or the effect is a "serf" then your God is a serf with no choice.

This is a self defeating belief.
God is existence. "All" are illusory effects created within the awareness of that existence. Hence, God is the primal-cause of all things. But God is not one of those things.
Your reasoning doesn't add-up.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You can't assume God exists and that people - with their own minds - also exist. If God exists, then people are what God is thinking/perceiving/believing that it is.
Oh that's just golden!

- Assume God exists.
- Assume God can make choices
- Assume other minds are part of God's mind
- Assume other minds make choices

Then follows:
-Other minds are part of God's mind.
:rolleyes:
I always like to stay away from assuming the conclusion, something you should try once in a while.
Call me old fashioned if you will.

So, you don't believe that choice exists... that what appears to be a choice is in fact determined by factors to complex to fathom. Yup. Too complex ever to be grasped by the mind itself, but I think that it can be described and simulated mathematically.

If we do have the ability to make choices, then we must be God. You don't address how or why a mind that can make choices can arise from a universe where there is no God or no choosing. If you did, I'm sure you'd begin to understand why this must be the case.In "Interesting Ian's universe" there is not one but many things that have the ability to choose. They are all "ultimate causes" of some of the events in the universe. All creators of part of the universe, as it were.
Interestingly, Ian has no idea how this would work, but hey, you can't win 'em all.
Again, this is without the assumption that other minds are part of God's mind, because this has not been proven. Stop pretending that it has.

... It's similar to the argument about free-will: Either we do have free-will or we don't. If we do, then our actions (some of them at least) are independent of the universe. In this case, it's impossible to reconcile atheism with free-will. Likewise, it's impossible to reconcile atheism with the ability to choose. Why is it so obvious that there can be only one agent in the universe with freedom of choice?

However, you have said that you don't think we have the ability to choose anything. This is actually the wisest stance to choose if you want to defend your choice to remain an atheist, since it appears irrational that choice can exist without the existence of a God.
However, this presents problems for the atheist. Given that choices do not exist within the universe, he now must abandon the beliefs he has chosen. He now must abandon the choice to defend his beliefs. He now must abandon all plans that he has made for the short-term and long-term. He now must abandon all relationships - certainly all relationships formed outside of family - since choice to remain in those relationships which were formally chosen is now relinquished. Likewise, he must abandon all the possessions that he has chosen to gather.

In other words, those that believe that there are no choices in existence - regardless of the source of those choices - need to reconcile this belief with their own history of making choices.
Okay so you argument is actually:

(1) Only God can choose
(2) Lifegazer experiences choosing

Threrefore:
Lifegazer is God.

I see problems with both premises:
(1) is something that isn't obvious, but because I don't believe in God it's not that relevant.
Our differences lie mainly in (2). In my view the choice is illusory, but the experience of choosing is not. The experience of choosing is just a immense computation based on the input of all your nerve endings, levels of chemicals such as hormones, blood-sugar etc, and the accumulated memory of everything you've experienced, ever. In my view the illusion of choice exists because there is a situation before the computation, where I imagine a couple of feasible outcomes, as a shortcut to the actual computation. Then arguments for and against will assert themselves, drawn from memory, current sensory input, etc. etc, and contribute to the inevitable outcome. And because I had limited the number of feasible outcomes beforehand, the outcome is bound to be one of them. Then I can say, "I chose that one", and give you some of the reasons why.

Voila! a choice is made.

In other words, I may not have the freedom to choose, but I cannot experience all of the factors that actually decide the outcome (not first hand, at least), so it feels like choosing but isn't. It just comes down to a different definition of what choice actually is.

Edited several times for several small issues

[Dancing David]

Hiya LG, glad to see you are still testing your beliefs!
This seems to be the nub;


detsop yb rezagefiL

None of this is relevant to the OP. The question is can any part of existence make choices if there's no God in existence? If so, explain how. If not, then you are God.



Your argumement seems to be that

1. Effects can not have free will because they are not the Ultimate Source.

2. Only an Ultimate Source would be capable of making choices.

3. If there is no Ultimate Source then there are no choices.

4. If you can make choices then you are the Ultimate Source.

See there is still this inherent dualism to your thinking, only the US could make a choice:

A. What if the US gave the 'effects' the ability to make choices?

B. What if the US is incapable of choice but the effects are?

C. Why wouldn't the US be as constrained as anything.

It seems to me LG that these are all just assumptions that you put upon the Ultimate Source, but you aren't the US and you can't by your definition have knowledge of US.

So why constrain US that way?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
In my view the choice is illusory, but the experience of choosing is not.

The question was whether choice is exhibited within existence. It's an either or issue: either yes or no.

Now, it doesn't matter what the source of these choices is. For example, if we exhibit choices but those choices are being made by something else, then existence is exhibiting choice in it's actions.

So, given your responses, I think you are saying that no choices are exhibited anywhere within existence. It just appears that choices are being made.
However, I am challenging this point of view. I think choices are being made, through us... and as I just said, the issue right now is not the source of those choices (it doesn't have to be us doing the choosing), but whether choices are being made at all.

Your problem now, having stated that there are zero choices being made, is that everything that happens has to be explained within the context of random chance or through the laws of physics, so that absolutely all events can be explained via mathematics or science.
But I would argue that this is impossible to do. Why? Because there are no forces in nature and zero mathematics which can cause or explain all of our actions.
Example:-
The mountaineer. A man walks up mountains. He thinks that it's his choice to travel to a range of mountains and climb the highest one. But it isn't. Not according to you anyway. According to you it's the choice of neither him or anything else in the universe. Ultimately, either random chance or the disinterested forces of nature have driven him up that mountain.
Now, if mountain-climbing forces exist, they have yet to be discovered. That might be difficult given that such forces only affect about one person in a thousand. So, hardly a universal force either. And we can hardly attribute the climbing of a mountain to random motion:
"Hello Bill, what happened to you yesterday?"
"Hi Jack. I dunno. I just happened to walk up a mountain for absolutely no reason. You know what it's like when you have zero control over your own actions."

Do I need to produce other examples, or do you get my drift?
You're trying to hide behind a veil of complexity that doesn't exist but which enables you to say: "No choices are being made."
But if that is so, then every event is reduced to the product of the disinterested forces within existence... so that every human action or trait has to be explained by a disinterested force.

Cannot be done squire.

[Kopji]

The other night I asked somebody a question. I asked:

"Do you know what distinguishes a serf from a God?"

... The answer I gave him was "Choice.".
... Meaning that God, not being a serf to anyone or anything, is free to make choices.

I thought it was worthy of discussion.
There are two things to discuss here. Firstly, does anything in this existence make definite choices? Secondly, is it possible for anything but an omnipotent God to express choices?

My answers to those questions are "Yes" and "No"... as you might expect. Though I do have reasons for thinking so. Those reasons will come up in the conversation, I suppose.
So, what's your opinion? Please explain anything you say with reason.


LG
Rather than us being a choice between 'Effects' and 'Omnipotent Beings', why can't we be perceived as creative agents?

Sure, we are limited by being human, but we are creative because of chaos. Chaos is not an evil to be always avoided, but something unpredictable and creative that gives birth much like a mother.

A metaphor for what I mean, might be that a virgin is destroyed to create a mother. Something happens that transcends 'choices'.

Chaos exists as a property of the universe even if we did not exist. With chaos, even if we ceased to exist, a random spark somewhere might cause life to arise again. Chaos is something that is independent of our existence. I cannot hold the view that everything that is, is causally related to a primary creative event. The universe was not only created, it is being created.

However I define 'choices' creativity has no limits. The serf could toss the tools down, walk away, do something equivalent to smashing a pot. There would be destruction and sharp edges, but eventually the destruction could be a foundation of some greater change in the serf's life. Or his grandchildren's... As you mentioned earlier, what is 300 years?

If that makes the serf 'godlike', he did not do anything that was not always within his ability. Perceiving God as the creative light or element within each of us seems an unneeded complication. So help me see the point.

Namatse' :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Kopji
Rather than us being a choice between 'Effects' and 'Omnipotent Beings', why can't we be perceived as creative agents?

Because there's no in-betweens. We either choose or we don't choose; we either create or we don't create (because our actions are all effects).
A creative-agent, from a philosophical point of view, must be the source of the effect that proceeds it. Otherwise, it is not a creative agent... merely a domino stood in-line, waiting to fall and perpetuate the tumbling of dominoes started not by it, but by something else.

Sure, we are limited by being human, but we are creative because of chaos. Chaos is not an evil to be always avoided, but something unpredictable and creative that gives birth much like a mother.

Well even if I believed in the existence of chaos (and I don't), anything effected by us is not created by us if you want to attribute that effect to chaos.
I'd like to ask you: Where in your awareness do you see chaos?
Does it exist outside mathematical possibility/conception?
I would argue not. In fact, you're going to have a helluva task arguing that it does - as difficult a task, in fact, as it would be to prove the existence of anything "outside" of yourself.

A metaphor for what I mean, might be that a virgin is destroyed to create a mother. Something happens that transcends 'choices'.

But what created the virgin? You see, the virgin doesn't create the mother unless the virgin creates herself. For that to happen, the virgin has to be God itself.

Chaos exists as a property of the universe even if we did not exist.

Where?

[The GM]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Does this mean that you believe in the existence of God?

Depending on the day of the week, I think it's probable, yes.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"However, if there is no God - no primal-cause for ALL effects/events in existence, then everything in existence is a serf - an effect. So explain why you think an absolute serf can exhibit absolute/definite choice."
Simple, and this is something I have explained many times. A cause-effect relationship does not uniquely imply intelligence/purposefulness - there is no discernible intelligence/purpose to a lightning strike starting a bush fire for example.

So while we might be the effects of some other processes (whether God or natural) there is no reason to assume that a chain of cause-effect is also a chain of intelligence/purpose. Clearly the important property of a choice is intelligence/purpose so if we are the result of some natural processes then our "cause" cannot be said to be the cause of our choices.

Importantly, we might even the the direct deliberate creation of some intelligent God but this does not imply that an intelligent creator is the source of our choices. So my answer is "yes" and "yes".

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Example:-
The mountaineer. A man walks up mountains. He thinks that it's his choice to travel to a range of mountains and climb the highest one. But it isn't. Not according to you anyway. According to you it's the choice of neither him or anything else in the universe. Ultimately, either random chance or the disinterested forces of nature have driven him up that mountain.
Now, if mountain-climbing forces exist, they have yet to be discovered. That might be difficult given that such forces only affect about one person in a thousand. So, hardly a universal force either. And we can hardly attribute the climbing of a mountain to random motion:
"Hello Bill, what happened to you yesterday?"
"Hi Jack. I dunno. I just happened to walk up a mountain for absolutely no reason. You know what it's like when you have zero control over your own actions." You're not seeing the consequences of what I've described.
Even though Bill's decision was inevitable, he still has turned down a couple of feasible alternatives, and for reasons that are persuasive to Bill. He has made the computation in which the all alternatives are weighed with the result: "Today is a good day for mountaineering." So even though Bill hasn't really made a free choice, he knows full well why he's going mountaineering today in stead of fishing, which he thinks he could also have done.

Do I need to produce other examples, or do you get my drift? No and Yes.
Now it's time for you to think about this a little harder.

You're trying to hide behind a veil of complexity that doesn't exist but which enables you to say: "No choices are being made."
But if that is so, then every event is reduced to the product of the disinterested forces within existence... so that every human action or trait has to be explained by a disinterested force.I'm not hiding. I am saying it to you: I believe that free choice and free will are probably (I am after all a sceptic) illusions that exist only as subjective desciptions of the experience of decision making.
And yes, I also believe that all of existence will probably prove to consist solely of "desinterested" things.
To me the truly amazing part is that "desinterested" things can apparently organise themselves so that interest arises. That this huge nonsensical ceremony of life arises with lumps of matter that can create and transfer an inner representation of a world where space doesn't exist and all all thoughts belong to someone else.

I don't care that the universe isn't interested in me; I'm interested in the universe and it has never failed to amaze me.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
God is existence. "All" are illusory effects created within the awareness of that existence. Hence, God is the primal-cause of all things. But God is not one of those things.
Your reasoning doesn't add-up.

Lets take this step by step to help you understand better.

Yes or no answer. Did I need a primal-cause to be created? Just a yes or no.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
God is existence. "All" are illusory effects created within the awareness of that existence. Hence, God is the primal-cause of all things. But God is not one of those things.
Your reasoning doesn't add-up.


1- existence is existence this is fact.

2-God is a belief based mainly in fear and desire but still only a belief.

David Brooks quote again best fits your statments that being "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known
by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy". David Brooks

You again point to a reality, a proven fact that being existence and demand " see if there is existence there must be a God"
That is no more valid as saying:" see if there is existence there must be a 10' talking Bunny"

2- You avoid the fact that you believe all known things need a primal-cause yet believe a unknown thing does not need a primal-cause and is the primal-cause. That is Illogical.

3- Yes all things are in the greatest reality illusion. that does not remove you from the physical "reality" in which you now live.

You believe you are a more advanced being in total control of your mind and by such you should be able over ride or control rise above the illusion of the physical reality . Try this test take a hammer and hit your hand as hard as you can over and over and you feel no pain if the hammer does not break your hand I will follow you.

I would ask you to jump off a building and fly but I fear you may try it and I do not wish to cause the suffering of any being.


But of course you will refuse to take any test to prove your statements as I and others have already proven so I/ we are safe.

I believe anyone who truly believes what he says is fact will prove it, you will not by such what you said is meaningless, you don’t even believe it.


how can an illusion have a chioce


4- Please tell me how this God "thinks"???? This is illogical.
A all knowing being can not think as there is nothing for this being to “think� about it can not ponder as all is known to it already.

This is as illogical as God based beliefs saying that this being has always existed then 10,000 years ago he “thought�. “hey I have an idea I am going to make all these little beings and I am going to want them to worship me. I will give them 80 years which is a blink of my eye and if they do not believe in I will make them suffer for all time. Now I will know because I am God if they will believe in me or not way before I make them and only about 25% will believe in me the way I want them to but what the heck. This sounds like fun�

You have said that when we don’t believe in your god it kills him then you said he can not die ( round and round your thinking goes) if it harms your god that us his thoughts do not believe in him and it harms him tell him to make his thoughts believe in him. He is doing this to himself.

NO, wait I am God?

Wait you said I needed a primal-cause and god was that primal-cause and god did not need a primal-cause, but you also said I was God so I am the primal-cause and don’t need a primal-cause.


Do you know what you believe?????

[Z]

*yawns*

Hmmm... to lazy today to bother with most of it. PSA, please be sure to point all the nonsense out for me, won't you?

My answers:

First question... Hmm, to what are you referring when you say 'definite' choice? If a choice is clearly defined, it is definite.

But essentially this is the free will question all over again.

IMHO, there is no absolute free will. Period. Why? lifegazer already demonstrated that answer - because without a 'first cause', EVERYTHINGS is both potential cause and effect. So every decision you make is the consequence of nearly innumerable factors that led up to each choice's moment - a near infinite series of interactions between wave/particles, in the system of chaos that is our universe, on levels far beneath our immediate, limited awareness.

That being said...

There is practical free will - which means, for all situations that pertain to us, we have our free will within the natural limits of our lives and world. Which means that, although my choices are in fact being determined second by second by sub-atomic actions and reactions throughout the universe, I can still choose to do or not do, think or not think, anything within my limits. Anything I 'desire'.

Understanding that you're just another link in a vast chain of 'random' interaction doesn't stop you from living your life as you choose it.

---

OK, can't resist - This statement is illogical:

The question is can any part of existence make choices if there's no God in existence? If so, explain how. If not, then you are God.

In other words:

PREMISE there is no god,
QUERY can any part of existence make choices?

RESPONDER YES: QUERY how?
RESPONDER NO: CONCLUSION You are God.

Error - RESPONDER NO contradicts PREMISE. GIVEN there is no god, once cannot conclude that there IS a god.

---

OK, g'night everybody.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The question is can any part of existence make choices if there's no God in existence? If so, explain how. If not, then you are God.
The classic 'god of gaps' argument. If you can't explain something then it must be God. In this case if you can't explain exactly how a brain works then it must be God making the choices. But it does not make sense, it is a non-sequitur.

After all proponents of God cannot explain how God works, but oddly they don't apply their logic to God.

[Kopji]

Because there's no in-betweens. We either choose or we don't choose; we either create or we don't create (because our actions are all effects).
A creative-agent, from a philosophical point of view, must be the source of the effect that proceeds it. Otherwise, it is not a creative agent... merely a domino stood in-line, waiting to fall and perpetuate the tumbling of dominoes started not by it, but by something else.

I don't see why I'd need to believe every event has a cause back to the beginning of time. This seems a very religious view, but not a particularly compelling one. Why not believe that if all events must have causes, events are strings that have a lifespan?

I'd lean more towards being described as a 'simple indeterminist'... if I were one for liking labels, which I'm not: We are really free, and universal causality is simply a philosophical notion.

I do appreciate zaydragons and lifegazers perspectives, but all they do is make me think that the purpose of some philosophy is to lead us to religion. There are other perspectives to 'free will' that have been argued for centuries, so although I do not claim to understand them all, I politely refrain from agreeing the matter is anywhere near being settled. :)

The idea of being 'creative agents' seems workable though, and I can see possible links to some eastern philosophy.

The word 'chaos' was/is probably bad to use, very meaning laden like 'God' or even 'Tao'. We see these words and all kinds of preconceived meanings pop up. The sense I mean with 'chaos' does not require belief.


Well even if I believed in the existence of chaos (and I don't), anything effected by us is not created by us if you want to attribute that effect to chaos. I'd like to ask you: Where in your awareness do you see chaos?
Does it exist outside mathematical possibility/conception?
I would argue not. In fact, you're going to have a helluva task arguing that it does - as difficult a task, in fact, as it would be to prove the existence of anything "outside" of yourself.

Humm, I guess proving something 'outside' my own perception of it just seems just as meaningless as 'free will'.
Is there any meaningful difference? Except that when I'm gone I presume the rest of you will still be here. If you were ever here... :D

A question from my pov is why do people see order? Order seems like something we add to understand, or perhaps we see order around us because it in our nature to be orderly. Parts of my own existence seem chaotic, so should my response be to pound them into order, or accept that at least some things are better left in their uncarved state? Obviously I feel the latter.

Mathematics might describe many things, but we know it can't describe all. I would not argue with a position that we can't really know anything to absolute certainty. I would say that the 'truth' of something is actually an objective thing, but that we can only describe it by imperfect methods. Science offers us methods to describe and predict.


But what created the virgin? You see, the virgin doesn't create the mother unless the virgin creates herself. For that to happen, the virgin has to be God itself.

Sheesh sorry, I did not explain that very well. Virgin and a mother are aspects of the same thing. We would not have mothers without a kind of creative, life changing event. Certainly many religions seem to recognize these passages in life and organize themselves around them. I will not use the phrase 'paradigm shifts'.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Kopji
I don't see why I'd need to believe every event has a cause back to the beginning of time.
If you believe in an external world (which lifegazer doesn't) then there is every reason to believe that every event has at least one cause back to the beginning of time.

But the point is that cause/effect does not imply intelligence and purpose. So if choice involves intelligence and purpose then a cause/effect chain back to the beginning of time does not imply that a choice that you or I make can be similarly traced back.

So whatever "caused" us, did not cause our choices.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
*yawns*

Hmmm... to lazy today to bother with most of it. PSA, please be sure to point all the nonsense out for me, won't you?

Sorry, I've been too busy doing more creative things than arguing with a lunatic, one who praises me one moment and condemns me the next... But anyway, there's really not much I can say; I read as far as this...

Okay, then we're going along with the fact that you are accepting my conclusion.
... In that case, the question is: why, if you TRULY accept my conclusion, would you trash my threads?

And realised that he'd collapsed into insanity again, so I can't be bothered addressing him beyond this today;

Lifegazer, it doesn't matter whether I truly accept your "philosophy" or not, you say your "philisophy" is True irrespective of that. I am God, whether I like it or not. Therefore YOU have to explain WHY GOD IS TRASHING YOUR THREADS. It's your claim that God made this choice. And He also made the choice to make the world evil and disinterested in your wild honkings. Explain why He did. What "P.S.A." thinks is irrelevant. God decided He would think that, and think he was "P.S.A." whilst doing it, before the Dream began... so YOU have to justify WHY God has chosen to hate, persecute or just plain ignore you. And you haven't even come close to doing so, as your continuing bad temper illustrates. Temper you aren't even supposed to have, being inner peace achieving God yourself, natch.

(Edited to add; Or to put it another way, "P.S.A." does NOT have the freedom of choice to NOT TO BE GOD.

At least, according to Lifegazer I don't. The most I can choose is to not accept that I am God. But this still leaves God as the Ultimate Cause of all Lifegazer's misery and alienation... whilst doing interesting things to his argument about Freedom of Choice too.)

And then I forgot all about what ever else he was wibbling about, as I'm off to book train tickets for an easter holiday now; something far more constructive than addressing inconsistent, mood swinging lunatics.

[Z]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Sorry, I've been too busy doing more creative things than arguing with a lunatic, one who praises me one moment and condemns me the next... But anyway, there's really not much I can say; I read as far as this...



And realised that he'd collapsed into insanity again, so I can't be bothered addressing him beyond this today;

Lifegazer, it doesn't matter whether I truly accept your "philosophy" or not, you say your "philisophy" is True irrespective of that. I am God, whether I like it or not. Therefore YOU have to explain WHY GOD IS TRASHING YOUR THREADS. It's your claim that God made this choice. And He also made the choice to make the world evil and disinterested in your wild honkings. Explain why He did. What "P.S.A." thinks is irrelevant. God decided He would think that, and think he was "P.S.A." whilst doing it, before the Dream began... so YOU have to justify WHY God has chosen to hate, persecute or just plain ignore you. And you haven't even come close to doing so, as your continuing bad temper illustrates. Temper you aren't even supposed to have, being inner peace achieving God yourself, natch.

(Edited to add; Or to put it another way, "P.S.A." does NOT have the freedom of choice to NOT TO BE GOD.

At least, according to Lifegazer I don't. The most I can choose is to not accept that I am God. But this still leaves God as the Ultimate Cause of all Lifegazer's misery and alienation... whilst doing interesting things to his argument about Freedom of Choice too.)

And then I forgot all about what ever else he was wibbling about, as I'm off to book train tickets for an easter holiday now; something far more constructive than addressing inconsistent, mood swinging lunatics.

Check that, roger roger, I think lg gets a hassle-free couple of hours, at least.

Have fun, you anti-logical raving nihilistic solipsist!

... pint's on me, where's my bread?

or to put it into an acronym, POMWMB?

:dl:

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The other night I asked somebody a question. I asked:

"Do you know what distinguishes a serf from a God?"

... The answer I gave him was "Choice.".
... Meaning that God, not being a serf to anyone or anything, is free to make choices.


Choice creates two sets of problems for an omnipotent, omnipresent being.

First being, the being cannot make a choice that it wants to not be omnipresent, because that is part of the definition of the being.

Second, the being cannot make the wrong choice, it can only choose between two completely equal alternatives, in which case, is it really a choice at all?

The second set of choices has to do with time. Saying that a choice occured is saying that there was a time before the choice, a time when the being did not know the outcome of the choice, but how could that be? The being knows everything. So all choices would be made at all times, there would not be a time when the choice was not already decided. So the choice would never actually occur.

Also, name one choice that darren can make, that russ cannot make.

[lifegazer]

I stick by my original claim: that either choices exist and are exhibited, or that they don't exist at all.
If they don't exist at all, then every human attribute or event has to be explained via disinterested physical order.
So, for example, one must cite universal forces as responsible for the puppet (the man) that climbs the mountain. Or, one must cite universal forces for the puppet that creates a religion. Or, one must cite universal forces for the puppet that writes poetry or paints portraits or produces a symphony.
If man chooses not to do these things, then the [so-called] disinterested forces of nature have driven these puppets to do such things.

To be honest, I think it's a crock to even suggest that whatever it is that we are does not exhibit choices in it's actions. But if that is what you choose to believe, then sobeit.

However, for the reasonable amongst us, who cannot fail but to acknowledge our own ability to make decisions and act upon them, the argument shifts to one of Can anything other than God make choices?
... I think not, for surely only God can choose what will happen next.

It's a good argument, I think. But judging by the responses so far, not one which I'll be likely to push much further.
Thankyou.

[RussDill]

It seems that lifegazer is dipping his pinky toe into the philosophical ocean known as "free-will". I don't know many philosophical topics on which more has been written. Course, lifegazer will pretend that everything he presents is brand new and warrants immediate attention, and that dispite everything that is out there, he has proved all of his assertions.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
It seems that lifegazer is dipping his pinky toe into the philosophical ocean known as "free-will". I don't know many philosophical topics on which more has been written. Course, lifegazer will pretend that everything he presents is brand new and warrants immediate attention, and that dispite everything that is out there, he has proved all of his assertions.
Russ, you haven't addressed a single thing I said.
Can you make choices Russ? Can anything other than God make choices Russ?

"... I think not, for surely only God can choose what will happen next."

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I stick by my original claim: that either choices exist and are exhibited, or that they don't exist at all.

So either there's choices or not? That's your claim?

If they don't exist at all, then every human attribute or event has to be explained via disinterested physical order.

Or maybe they don't exist in the simplistic sense you claim is the only option. Didn't you like the dragons point about the complexity of choice?

So, for example, one must cite universal forces as responsible for the puppet (the man) that climbs the mountain. Or, one must cite universal forces for the puppet that creates a religion. Or, one must cite universal forces for the puppet that writes poetry or paints portraits or produces a symphony.
If man chooses not to do these things, then the [so-called] disinterested forces of nature have driven these puppets to do such things.


Why are those forces as expressed in our lives "disinterested"? Why are they puppets?


To be honest, I think it's a crock to even suggest that whatever it is that we are does not exhibit choices in it's actions. But if that is what you choose to believe, then sobeit.
No as Russ and PSA have shown - that is what you believe. God made all the choices instantly before we were ever dreamed into being.

However, for the reasonable amongst us, who cannot fail but to acknowledge our own ability to make decisions and act upon them, the argument shifts to one of Can anything other than God make choices?
... I think not, for surely only God can choose what will happen next.

It's a good argument, I think. But judging by the responses so far, not one which I'll be likely to push much further.
Thankyou.

Not really an argument at all. let me tighten it up for you.
"Obviously we make choices therefore god makes all the choices".
But as Russ has shown and as you have claimed - God knew everything before we were dreamed of by god therefore god made all "our" choices in advance therefore we do not make choices in your world. All we are is mindless machines blindly following gods preconcevied path.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Russ, you haven't addressed a single thing I said.
Can you make choices Russ? Can anything other than God make choices Russ?
"... I think not, for surely only God can choose what will happen next."


I made a response, have you considered addressing it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
To be honest, I think it's a crock to even suggest that whatever it is that we are does not exhibit choices in it's actions. Maybe you are correct gazer. But don't you think that beliefs should be based at least in part in logic? You know logic, reason and the search for truth is not new. It has been around for thousands of years. The early Greeks made some astonishing advances in thought. Instead of just relying on intuition or what seemed correct they formulated ways to logically reason the truth.


Thales (650 BC) and form;
Democritos (460 BC) and atomism;
Pythagora (570 BC) and numbers;
Eraclito (550 BC)
Parmenides (515 BC)
Zeno (490 BC) and the paradox;
Socrates (470 BC)
Euclides (300 BC): "Elements"
Plato (427 BC) and the world of ideas;
Aristotle (384 BC): logic, matter, natural motion;
Lucrezio (54 AD): "De Rerum Natura"
Augustine (354): "Confessiones"
Boetius (524): "De Consolatione Philosophiae"
Aquinas (1221): "Summa Theologica"
More (1477): "Utopia"
Bacon (1561): "Novum Organum"
Descartes (1596): "Discourse"
Hobbes (1588): "Leviathan"
Spinoza (1632)'s spiritualism;
Locke (1632): Theory of knowledge
Leibniz (1646)' panpsychism;
Newton (1642): "Principia Mathematica"
Vico (1668): "Scienza nuova" (1725)
Berkeley (1685): Idealism
Hume (1711): Epistemology
Kant (1724)'s categories;
Hegel (1770): Idealism
Darwin (1809): "Origin of Species"
Kierkegaard (1813): Idealism
Mill (1806): Idealism
Marx (1818): Idealism
Freud (1856): "Interpretation of Dreams"
Nietzsche (1844): Idealism
James (1842): Idealism
Bergson (1859): Idealism
Brentano (1838): Idealism
Peirce (1839): Logic
Frege (1848): Logic
Meinong (1853): Idealism
Husserl (1859): Phenomenology
Hilbert (1862): Logic
Russell (1872): Logic
Kuhn: Paradigm Logic
Levi-Strauss: Logic
Ayer: Language, Truth and Logic
Wittgenstein (1889): Logic
Heidegger (1889): Being and Time
Gadamer (1900): Logic
Ryle: Logic
Von Neumann: Logic
Goedel (1906): Logic
Turing (1912): Logic
Sussure: Logic
Dewey (1859): Logic
Modern synthesis of biology
Herb Simon's symbolic processing paradigm
Jerry Fodor's computational functionalism
Kenneth Craik's representational paradigm
Ilya Prigogine's thermodynamics of non-equilibrium systems
Gerard Edelman's theory of neural selection
Fredrick Bartlett's reconstructive memory
William James' connectionism
Noam Chomsky's generative grammar
Stuart Kaufman's self-organization
Humberto Maturana's autopoiesis
George Lakoff's cognitive metaphor
Roger Penrose's quantum theory of consciousness
Lotfi Zadeh's fuzzy logic
Rodolfo Llina's brain model
Allan Hobson's theory of dreaming
Richard Dawkins' memes Please note this list is far from complete.

So after 2000+ years and formal methods of deduction and induction you give us: "To be honest, I think it's a crock to even suggest that whatever it is that we are does not exhibit choices in it's actions."

Yours is the type of "thinking" that was going on before the early Greeks. Aren't we beyond that yet?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yours is the type of "thinking" that was going on before the early Greeks. Aren't we beyond that yet?

Like I said, pinky toe.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, for example, one must cite universal forces as responsible for the puppet (the man) that climbs the mountain. Or, one must cite universal forces for the puppet that creates a religion. Or, one must cite universal forces for the puppet that writes poetry or paints portraits or produces a symphony.
If man chooses not to do these things, then the [so-called] disinterested forces of nature have driven these puppets to do such things.
It is not a good argument because you have raised no specific objection to why disinterested forces could not result in a mind capable of writing great music or poetry.

We know from mathematics that simple algorithms can lead to patterns of tremendous intricacy and order. We also know mathematically that some combination of randomness and selection will produce an increase in complexity.

So given sufficient time and input there is no pure reason objection to the idea that disinterested forces might result in a Schubert or TS Eliot.

Our experiences show us that such talents are highly differential among individuals, I could not even write a simple melody much less a symphony. This appears to indicate that individual achievements originate with the individual, rather than some central server.

So reason and experience indicate that we are most likely individuals and that intelligence originates in our individual minds. On the other hand there is no reasoning or experiences that would support the idea that all of existence is a fully intelligent being.

You still have not explained why you think that cause/effect somehow implies intelligence and purpose.

Of course we don't absolutely know that any theory is true, but since reason and our experiences are our only source of knowledge then we should probably accept the most reasonable idea that choices are made by individuals and that existence as a whole is generally disinterested in our individual concerns.

[Flex]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I stick by my original claim: that either choices exist and are exhibited, or that they don't exist at all.


Good grief, Charlie Brown!

Choice? We don't even know what the word means, let alone know if we have it or not. Are you aware, LifeGazer, that some neurological studies suggest that subjects send the signal to move their arm up to twenty millisecond before they decide to do so?

I have some doubts about the methodology of the studies, but let's assume they are true. There is no practical reason to suppose they are false.

Did the subject choose to move their arm before the conscious brain was aware it?

Or did the subject choose to move their arm only after the nerve impulse was on it's way?

Choice is not a binary operator.

-Flex

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I stick by my original claim: that either choices exist and are exhibited, or that they don't exist at all.
If they don't exist at all, then every human attribute or event has to be explained via disinterested physical order.
So, for example, one must cite universal forces as responsible for the puppet (the man) that climbs the mountain. Or, one must cite universal forces for the puppet that creates a religion. Or, one must cite universal forces for the puppet that writes poetry or paints portraits or produces a symphony.
If man chooses not to do these things, then the [so-called] disinterested forces of nature have driven these puppets to do such things.

To be honest, I think it's a crock to even suggest that whatever it is that we are does not exhibit choices in it's actions. But if that is what you choose to believe, then sobeit. First of all, any extraordinary incoherence in this post is due to intoxication. :alc:
Secondly: que? "...then sobeit"?!

That's a first.

However, for the reasonable amongst us,... Ah! okay.
...who cannot fail but to acknowledge our own ability to make decisions and act upon them, the argument shifts to one of Can anything other than God make choices?
... I think not, for surely only God can choose what will happen next.Only because you cannot bring yourself to really question your subjective experiences:"Is the choice I experience really a choice?"

You accept this without question.

It's a good argument, I think. But judging by the responses so far, not one which I'll be likely to push much further.
Thankyou. No, thank you. You're being awfully concessive today, are you okay?

[Kopji]

He's right though, it helps to care deeply about the problems of causality and free will.
I don't care enough about the questions... -whatever-

Tom Morris's 'Philosophy for Dummies' does a good job of explaining the different cases in a few pages.
He is a theist (PHd from Notre Dame), but the book is not heavy handed and examines most issues fairly. Despite the 'dummies' title and western philosophical theist bent, I can recommend it.

(Especially for people like me who occasionally need to understand philosophical points of view without devoting a lifetime and fifty feet of bookshelf space...)

I find some similarity with his generally theistic description of a 'creative agent' and other, essentially atheistic eastern concepts. Things that bring ideas together like this always interest me.

...On this view of human freedom, our place in the universe is quite distinctive. We can, in fact, initiate wholly new chains of causual action. We can launch new things into the world. We can change things and really make a difference by our creative action. We are not puppets of fate, or of logic, or of science. We can choose our own destinies.
- T Morris

[Robin]

Originally posted by Kopji
He's right though, it helps to care deeply about the problems of causality and free will.
I just can't get that enthusiastic about free-will problems. If I don't have it then I can't do anything about it, so why worry? Clearly we appear to have free-will and that is good enough for me. Call it an illusion, but illusion of what? Unless you can point to something that has real free will then the illusion is as good as the real thing.

But it is strange that lifegazer claims that the mountain is an illusion but the choice to climb the illusory mountain cannot possibly be an illusion. If the external world is an illusion and the individual self is an illusion then how do we know our choices are real? Surely if God can create the illusion of an external world he can create the illusion of a choice.

Finally doesn't the fact that I make a choice mean that there was a possibility that I could have selected some other alternative? But if I was omniscient then I would have known in advance which alternative I was going to select, then there was never a possibility I could have chosen any other way.

An omniscient God cannot choose anything, only a finite being can choose.

[Z]

In fact, an infinite, timeless God would have to, by definition, embrace all possible choices simultaneously.

Maybe what's most important to face about free will is, that it is an attribute of a certain macroscopic phenomenon which we call 'intelligent life'... which, like so many other attributes, becomes meaningless the further down in scale we go.

I have to admit I am a severe Asimov fan, and in fact I get a lot of my understanding about choice and thought from some of his fiction writing. He mentions a lot about potentials - setting up a scenario where one potential builds to a point of making the robot make one choice, but a second builds up after to make the robot contradict that choice... and put the robot into a kind of loop (see Runaround in I Robot). Human minds work on potentials, too - just a few thousand times as many at work at once.

Everything in the environment affects them, as does the condition of potentials in nearby parts of the brain - and as these potentials shift in strength, decisions are made - sometimes based on nothing but these potentials alone.

Anyway, we're back to a concept that I know, but cannot place into words adequately. Sorry.

[Kopji]

Asimov's great so I can let that settle it for me. :D

[P.S.A.]

No, thank you. You're being awfully concessive today, are you okay?

It's cognitative dissonance. He knows that this argument just lines him up for the exact opposite of the point he wants to make... He's trying to argue for yet another proof that we are all God, and this he believes leads to happy happy, heaven-land. Except it doesn't; because we clearly aren't in HHH-L now. Quite the opposite, even though we are supposedly God (whether we want to be or not). Which means that if God is making the choices, he's making ones Lifegazer can't bring himself to face... But there's no way out of that conclusion; He's trying desperately to leave the argument purely as this...

1.) You can make choices
2.) Only God can make choices
3.) You are God

Because he emotionally needs to make that argument; and if he can run off from this thread fast enough, he has persuaded himself that no one will have time to add the fouth, obvious step of

4.) And what a lot of wicked, stupid choices God has made so far

... the step we've had hundreds of thousands of years to realise, but which LG desperately wants to forget about. As I said, it's cognitative disonnance on LG's part. Pre emptive meakness in the hope you won't intellectually kick him where he knows he's weak... and so he can pretend that he's actually strong if he's not being kicked there... Must keep the Singularity Sky Daddy pure, mustn't admit reality...

[wraith]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The other night I asked somebody a question. I asked:

"Do you know what distinguishes a serf from a God?"

... The answer I gave him was "Choice.".
... Meaning that God, not being a serf to anyone or anything, is free to make choices.

I thought it was worthy of discussion.
There are two things to discuss here. Firstly, does anything in this existence make definite choices? Secondly, is it possible for anything but an omnipotent God to express choices?

My answers to those questions are "Yes" and "No"... as you might expect. Though I do have reasons for thinking so. Those reasons will come up in the conversation, I suppose.
So, what's your opinion? Please explain anything you say with reason.

All this comes down to what a force is. How can anything do anything without the existence of force? If this is so, then there can be no choice or free-will. I would say that the only way to achive choice (free-will) is to act outside of force. The only thing that I can think of is a primal cause. A cause without force.

You could bypass the primal cause with infinite regress into the past.

So can I choose? No, I don't choose anything. I do exactly what's in my nature. My nature came about from those forces.

Did that mountaineer "choose" to climb the mountain? No. He had a desire to climb the mountain and that desire didn't come to him from no where. Also, there had to be a mountain there in the first place, along with many other things that had to be present for him to "choose" to climb a mountain.

What about a god? Does a god have choice? That depends on how you define god. If god perceives just as I do, then god can not make choices. He/she/it is bound to Fate, unless he can act outside of those forces.

[hammegk]

Hey, wraith. Long time, no see. :)


No change here. Materialists predominate, and they still pretend there is a difference between the boulder rolling downhill and their actions.

[wraith]

Good to see you again Hammegk...it has been a while.

...good to see you still in the fight...now thats stamina!

[Z]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hey, wraith. Long time, no see. :)


No change here. Materialists predominate, and they still pretend there is a difference between the boulder rolling downhill and their actions.

er, that there is NO difference, you mean?

Especially in this case. We do what we do because we do what we do. A boulder rolls downhill for the same reasons, ultimately, that I type this message.

So simple.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by hammegk
...Materialists predominate, and they still pretend there is a difference between the boulder rolling downhill and their actions. Stupid materialists, always blathering on how there's more to the mind than physics. Unbelievable, how can they defend such an utterly...

wait a minute...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

So simple.


Originally posted by H'ethetheth

wait a minute...

Your 'real' "Choices"??? :D

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by hammegk
Your 'real' "Choices"??? :D "What" do "you" "think" "'real'" "means" when "it" comes to "choices"? Maybe "you" could "elaborate" on this.

[hammegk]

I "choose" not to .... ;)

I will note that materialism offers only algorthmic control based on noisy input and output data.

Idealism provides a possible method for consciousness to interact with the (also conscious)surroundings.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by hammegk
I "choose" not to .... ;)

I will note that materialism offers only algorthmic control based on noisy input and output data.

Idealism provides a possible method for consciousness to interact with the (also conscious)surroundings. It's a shame you "choose" not to tell me what you think a real choice is.
If you want my thoughts, they are up there somewhere. In short, I suspect its clue lies in remembering feasible alternatives after discarding them. You'll think: "I could have done this or that, but I didn't because of such and such.", but you discarded these things because you calculated which was the best alternative. This appears to me a kind of algorithm that works for selecting actions, yet creates the memory that this outcome might easily have been different (and it might, given the probable high sensitivity to input noise).

I agree that the materialist idea of algorithmic choice seems unattractive at first, but to me idealism reeks of incredulity and it (still) lacks a proper foundation. It appears to me its only foundation is the unwillingness to accept that, apparently, being a noisy non-linear chaotic computer feels like this. I have no trouble accepting this, but because it is a fairly counter-intuitive notion I can accept that others refuse.
History has shown however that intuition is something that fails too often in scientific observation. It generally fails as soon as one departs from the scale of everyday experience.

[Z]

And, IMHO, Ham's post is just the same statement, worded in two different languages.

Maybe the real question should be, to what level does 'free will' matter?

Hmmm....

[hammegk]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
It's a shame you "choose" not to tell me what you think a real choice is.

"Choice": a simple little word whose meaning has been discussed for thousands of years: a problem of the complexity of HPC, although they may be the same thing.

In later works, Wittgenstein stated, basically, the true transmission of ideas is impossible. Tell me what Tao "is", please.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Maybe the real question should be, to what level does 'free will' matter?
For an objective idealist "nothing else exists" could be one way to put it (badly, I suspect :) ).

Where does one of Stimpy's fields end and another begin?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by hammegk
"Choice": a simple little word whose meaning has been discussed for thousands of years: a problem of the complexity of HPC, although they may be the same thing.I do not pretend to have the answers to this problem, but for at least 1900 years of the last two millennia, scientific knowledge needed to examine the nitty gritty of choice, mind and free will, has not been available. In the last century the possibilities to properly investigate have been becoming more and more available, and so far nothing but intuition indicates that anything but physics is going on in the mind.
Also I'm not such a fan of abbreviations, what does HPC mean to you?
Google suggests:
- High Performance Computing
- Health Professions Council
- High Performance Coatings
- Hydrometeorological Prediction Center
- Hasty Pudding Cipher
- Heat Pump Centre
- Human Performance Center
- Hopkins Population Center
Did you mean the first (and most common) one?Edit: Never mind.
In later works, Wittgenstein stated, basically, the true transmission of ideas is impossible. Tell me what Tao "is", please.It might be impossible to convey exactly your ideas, but that doesn't mean I cannot learn anything from your attempts. Please feel free to attempt.
Or are you just here to inform the world of your particular brand of idealism without allowing people to question it?

Alas, my idea of the word Tao "is" limited to the associations "Japan" and "religion". That is all I could possibly attempt to transmit.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Also I'm not such a fan of abbreviations, what does HPC mean to you?
Hard Problem of Consciousness.


It might be impossible to convey exactly your ideas, but that doesn't mean I cannot learn anything from your attempts. Please feel free to attempt.

Okay. Please explain the most basic differentiation of non-life (matter) from life.

[Z]

Okay. Please explain the most basic differentiation of non-life (matter) from life.

That which lives must also die.

That's about as basic as it gets.

[Robin]

Now let me get the "materialism vs idealism" views of the mind straight.

The materialist : "The mind consists of some stuff that acts according to some set of rules"
The idealist: "Absolutely not! The mind consists of some other stuff that acts according to some other set of rules.

Have I got it yet?

Incidentally what exactly is the "hard problem of consciousness"?

[hammegk]

Hard problem of consciousness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Various formulations:

"Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"
"Why do qualia exist?"
"Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"

Robin, the question is "which monism"; some would call it mind vs matter, I prefer "life" vs non-life. Choose both and you are an illogical dualist (if interaction is implied). Non-interactive dualism is at least logically defensible.


zaar: Not a bad answer, but I'm asking one to look at the gamut from energy fields (or strings, or whatever) to sub-atomic processes, to atomic processes -- atoms, compounds, molecules --to proteins to rna/dna coding, and point out and defend where non-life becomes, in the most general sense, life.

[Z]

Originally posted by hammegk
zaar: Not a bad answer, but I'm asking one to look at the gamut from energy fields (or strings, or whatever) to sub-atomic processes, to atomic processes -- atoms, compounds, molecules --to proteins to rna/dna coding, and point out and defend where non-life becomes, in the most general sense, life.

Depends on what 'life' is defined as.

I think, customarily, we define 'life' as having certain attributes:
1) growth through metabolism: seeks to convert matter into energy for own purposes; must 'eat' and 'excrete' (includes respiration, where applicable; must 'breathe')
2) propagation of species: seeks to reproduce in kind or in similar kind.
3) adaptation to environment through internal process: 'movement' or 'reaction'; affects rather than being solely effect.

That being said, the distinction between life and non-life is clear in the macro universe, but becomes grey as one proceeds to virii, protovirii, etc. Are there molecule chains that are 'alive'? What about the rare animal that lacks the will to reproduce?

At the point at which a molecule demonstrates an 'intention' to metabolize, reproduce, and react to its environment, I would have to conlude that this molecule is 'alive'. As such, most molecules - even fairly complex DNA strands - are not, technically, alive, as they are reacting within a soup of chemicals without intention; they are being affected, not affecting. They are not metabolising in any way that we can understand. They simply reproduce.

The key would be to determine what the most minute structure is that needs to metabolize to grow, that needs to reproduce rather than replicate, and that acts or reacts within its environment by internal rather than external forces. This is life.

Not being a biologist - in fact, I made 'B's in Biology, so I feel way under-qualified - I couldn't say where 'life' begins, based on my definition. But it is very clear where life ends, as such.

...

Sorry, Ham - got long-winded there.

Anyway, that which lives must also die. That which cannot die, cannot live.

Hmmm... which means God is not alive!

Fascinating.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hard Problem of Consciousness. Thanks.
Okay. Please explain the most basic differentiation of non-life (matter) from life. This is your attempt to transmit you ideas on choice? Maybe you should transmit your idea of "transmission" first. I asked you politely for your opinion on the matter at hand because I'm interested. In stead, the only response I get is a question about a somewhat related subject.
And what if I answer, and ask you for your opinion on this next matter? Do I get the next question?

My opinion on life vs. non-life:
There is no clear border between life and non-life, and no clear border between mindfulness and mindlessness. It's all grey area from self replicating molecule to tree to simian. As Dennett remarks: we consist of robots, and we've evolved from robots. Or something to that effect.

Now please be so kind as to share your ideas on choice.

[Robin]

Originally posted by hammegk
"Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"
"Why do qualia exist?"
"Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"
Hmm ... seems that the "hard" problem of consciousness does not have a hard definition. It all sounds rather "why are we here?", "why do birds suddenly appear?" sort of stuff.

the question is "which monism"; some would call it mind vs matter, I prefer "life" vs non-life. Choose both and you are an illogical dualist (if interaction is implied). Non-interactive dualism is at least logically defensible.
It seems to me that this paragraph does not supply any definite information and contains at least one contradiction. Oh wait, I forgot, this is philosophy!

[uruk]

My opinion on life vs. non-life:
There is no clear border between life and non-life, and no clear border between mindfulness and mindlessness. It's all grey area from self replicating molecule to tree to simian. As Dennett remarks: we consist of robots, and we've evolved from robots. Or something to that effect.
That's pretty much it. Life is a particular pattern or system of molecules that we point to and say "that is life". It's like looking at a grey scale and trying to determine when one shade of grey begins and another ends.

And you do notice that once the chemical reactions of life cease, "living" matter returns to "dead" matter.

[uruk]

I'm sorry, this is a bit off topic, but I just finnished watching "what the bleep do we know". Did anybody else find it to be lacking? Perhaps even a recruitment movie for scientology?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by uruk
That's pretty much it. Life is a particular pattern or system of molecules that we point to and say "that is life". It's like looking at a grey scale and trying to determine when one shade of grey begins and another ends.


The analogy I use from a logic book of many years ago is sunset. There exist at least 3 definitions - astronomical, maritime and civil, depending on whether the top edge, bottom edge or middle of the sun has crossed the horizon. Yet we can still tell night from day

[wraith]

Hammegk: Okay. Please explain the most basic differentiation of non-life (matter) from life

zaayrdragon: That which lives must also die.

That's about as basic as it gets.

I think what Hammegk is saying is why does this property of "consciousness" comes to be when matter is arrange in certain configurations. Why would the laws of nature bother? Why evolution at all?

[uruk]

think what Hammegk is saying is why does this property of "consciousness" comes to be when matter is arrange in certain configurations. Why would the laws of nature bother? Why evolution at all? It is a consequence of nature. The way the universe works allows for the formation of chemical and eletrical interactions. The proper elements arranged just so form chemical reaction's that we call "life". When the systems become complex enough we call it "conciousness".

It happens because what we describe as the laws of physics allows it to happen.

When you look a physiology you can see all the chemical reactions that take place so that our bodies can function. The electricity that our brain and nervous system uses to function is generated the separation of sodium and potassium ions from sodium and potassium chlorides by a membrane of fat and protiens. By itself the chemical reaction would not be considered life, but with the combination of other "lifeless" chemical reactions we have something that we call "life".

edited to add: It is incorrect to say "why would evolution bother" because the increasing complexity in the chemical reactions that we label "life" and how the changes happen to those complex chemical patterns IS evolution. Or at least part of what evolution describes.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith
I think what Hammegk is saying is why does this property of "consciousness" comes to be when matter is arrange in certain configurations. Why would the laws of nature bother? Why evolution at all? Because it created the most effective creature in the history of this planet?

Hans

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wudang
The analogy I use from a logic book of many years ago is sunset. There exist at least 3 definitions - astronomical, maritime and civil, depending on whether the top edge, bottom edge or middle of the sun has crossed the horizon. Yet we can still tell night from day
And can a sensor that detects photons also be considered alive?

But more interesting, does the sensor actually detect all photons that impinge on it, or does choice exist at that level?

[uruk]

And can a sensor that detects photons also be considered alive? Well you probably would not consider an eye by itself to be alive. but when it is conjunction with a person the whole system is considered alive. That's the grayscale analogy. you can't point to a pile of organs and say that's alive but that's not. only when all of them are together in a cohesive, self suporting system do we consider it "alive".

But more interesting, does the sensor actually detect all photons that impinge on it, or does choice exist at that level? What photons the detector detects depends on the structure of the sensor. I don't think that we conciously choose not to detect infra-red or ultraviolet wavelengths, it just that our eyes are not structured to detect them because of the evolutionary conditions and paths our physiology took. If our evolutionary conditions were favorable for our eyes to detect infra-red and ultraviolet then it would be so. Bees and butterflies can detect ultra-violet. Snakes can detect infra-red. Evolutionary conditions allowed for such developments in them.

edited because I don't want you guys to know that I had to ask someone how to spell "violet."

[Z]

Originally posted by wraith
I think what Hammegk is saying is why does this property of "consciousness" comes to be when matter is arrange in certain configurations. Why would the laws of nature bother? Why evolution at all?

What we call 'consciousness' is nothing more than data processing. When a structure reacts by internal process to some external stimuli, it's conscious. Our computers are conscious. Our cars are conscious. No, they don't think - but they take input, process it, and act to produce output.

But he asked about 'life'. Not 'consciousness' - though I would argue, the two are linked, though possibly a thing can be conscious without being alive.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
But he asked about 'life'. Not 'consciousness' - though I would argue, the two are linked, though possibly a thing can be conscious without being alive.

For the purposes of my novel, I certainly hope so!

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by hammegk
And can a sensor that detects photons also be considered alive?

Insufficient data. "Ability to detect photons" is not part of any definition of life I've ever heard and is irrelevant to the question of whether the sensor is "alive"

Originally posted by hammegk
But more interesting, does the sensor actually detect all photons that impinge on it, or does choice exist at that level?

I don't know, does it? You haven't said enough about this sensor to determine that.

[wraith]

Originally posted by uruk
It is a consequence of nature. The way the universe works allows for the formation of chemical and eletrical interactions. The proper elements arranged just so form chemical reaction's that we call "life". When the systems become complex enough we call it "conciousness".

You can only call something conscious if it is conscious, not because it has reached a certain complexity.

It happens because what we describe as the laws of physics allows it to happen.

I don't follow.

Would you say that the laws of nature have the instructions for consciousness "built in"? That is consciousness had no choice but to come to be at some point in time.

When you look a physiology you can see all the chemical reactions that take place so that our bodies can function. The electricity that our brain and nervous system uses to function is generated the separation of sodium and potassium ions from sodium and potassium chlorides by a membrane of fat and protiens. By itself the chemical reaction would not be considered life, but with the combination of other "lifeless" chemical reactions we have something that we call "life".

"Life" is a label brought about by consciousness. Have you ever seen anthing that isnt conscious call something "life"?

edited to add: It is incorrect to say "why would evolution bother" because the increasing complexity in the chemical reactions that we label "life" and how the changes happen to those complex chemical patterns IS evolution. Or at least part of what evolution describes.

I'm talking about the evolution of consciousness. The universe seeks to become more complex. Matter through to consciousness - this is the path that the universe took. Why this one over a million others?

[wraith]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
What we call 'consciousness' is nothing more than data processing.

This would make a calculator conscious.

When a structure reacts by internal process to some external stimuli, it's conscious. Our computers are conscious. Our cars are conscious. No, they don't think - but they take input, process it, and act to produce output.

I would not describe these things as being conscious at all! This is just a play on words.

But he asked about 'life'. Not 'consciousness' - though I would argue, the two are linked, though possibly a thing can be conscious without being alive.

I agree with you on the link between on life and consciousness.

But to suggest that something can be conscious and not alive at the same time.....I disagree, in the same tone as describing something like a computer to being conscious.

[Z]

Originally posted by wraith
This would make a calculator conscious.



I would not describe these things as being conscious at all! This is just a play on words.



I agree with you on the link between on life and consciousness.

But to suggest that something can be conscious and not alive at the same time.....I disagree, in the same tone as describing something like a computer to being conscious.

Then what is your definition of conscious? What is the dividing line that makes an ant conscious but not a computer?

As near as I can make out, any thought processing - any input processing - is a form of consciousness. Humans possess a complex consciousness, ants and calculators a simple consciousness.

Or are we to add 'self-aware' into the mix? In which case, computers (some) are still conscious.

What else will you add to the definition to separate organic consciousness from inorganic consciousness? Or lower forms (like plants) from upper forms (like men)?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Then what is your definition of conscious? What is the dividing line that makes an ant conscious but not a computer?

The former experiences the world through abstract sensations.
The latter does not.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The former experiences the world through abstract sensations.
The latter does not.

And what proof do you have of this? Indeed, even in your theology, God may choose to experience the 'world' through other things, such as computers. You can no more say how a computer experiences the world than you can how any other living thing (except yourself) experiences the world... unless you're finally willing to demonstrate your remarkable power to shift your experiences from 'lifegazer' to another 'entity'...

[lifegazer]

I see. Let me get this straight: you are advocating that computers are possibly aware of sensations?

What about rocks and pebbles?

What about emotions? I mean, if a computer can see red, then why can't it feel pain too?

[Z]

Neither rocks nor pebbles have sensors (as we understand them) nor do they have processors of any sort (again, as we understand them). They may, indeed, in some way we cannot conceive - but as of yet, they appear not to.

Can a computer feel 'pain'? What is pain? Pain is a sensation carried through specific nerves into the brain where fear/threat responses react. Pain is a warning of potential or actual damage to the body. My computer has no such sensors, but it does have an antivirus - so perhaps its virus detection processing could be seen as 'pain'. Or other error-checking systems - like when a program freezes up. Or the heat sensor on my CPU - perhaps, when the heat gets too high, the computer feels 'pain'. It's certainly a viable belief.

So, yes, I do propose that a computer is aware of sensations.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I see. Let me get this straight: you are advocating that computers are possibly aware of sensations?

What about rocks and pebbles?

What about emotions? I mean, if a computer can see red, then why can't it feel pain too?

Can a child in a small jungle forest village feel pain? You have never been there, have never seen this child, he/ she is outside your awareness, does he/she even exist?

Did his/her great, great, great, great grandparents exist? because they were outside your awareness?

[uruk]

You can only call something conscious if it is conscious, not because it has reached a certain complexity. The complexity of the organizim faciltates the level conciousness. We have conciouseness because our brain has the sufficient level of neural complexity to maintain what we would call conciousness. An ape is self-aware and aware of it's surrondings enough to solve problems on thier level, such as getting at termite and ants by stripping the leaves off a twig and insering it into a ant or termite hill. This is rudimentary tool building. Our brains are larger with higher concentrations of neurons. As a result, our problem solving capabilities and self awarness are much higher or complex.
I don't follow.

Would you say that the laws of nature have the instructions for consciousness "built in"? That is consciousness had no choice but to come to be at some point in time.
Not "instructions". There is no "concious thought" in the laws of nature that would "make a recipe" for conciousness. The carrier of conciouseness (the brain) is composed of elements organized into various compounds. Carbon, sodium, potasium, iron, calcium, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. That organization took millions of years of random interactions, coincidental events and favorable evironmental conditions, one building upon each other to produce conciousness. It happened because there was nothing in nature to prevent it from happening. From a certain point of view you can say that conciousness had no choice but to come into existance because it was not dissallowed.
"Life" is a label brought about by consciousness. Have you ever seen anthing that isnt conscious call something "life"? That what I said. "Life" is a lable just like "conciousness" is a label. Life is label we give certain set of chemical reactions. Conciousness is a label we give to a certain level of self-awarness brought about by a certain level of complexity in our brains. That level of self-awarness gives us the ability to investigate and ponder and to label such things.
"life" and "conciousness" comes from the complex organization of "lifeless" and "unconcious" elements of nature.
Life and conciousness would not be possible without chemical compounds and reactions. all of these are made possible by what we label as the "laws of nature".
I'm talking about the evolution of consciousness. The universe seeks to become more complex. Matter through to consciousness - this is the path that the universe took. Why this one over a million others? Actually the univers becomes more complex on a local level. The universe ultimately increases it's entropy through the local increase in complexity.
What million other paths could conciousness have taken to come into being? Can you give examples?
I would venture to say that conciousness took this particular path in this tiny part of the universe because of the local conditions. Perhaps conciousness took a different path in another part of the universe where local conditions were favorable for a different form of conciousness. We can't know untill we encounter it. All we know is our little corner of the universe.

[uruk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lifegazer
The former experiences the world through abstract sensations.
The latter does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Response by: zaayrdragon

And what proof do you have of this? Indeed, even in your theology, God may choose to experience the 'world' through other things, such as computers. You can no more say how a computer experiences the world than you can how any other living thing (except yourself) experiences the world... unless you're finally willing to demonstrate your remarkable power to shift your experiences from 'lifegazer' to another 'entity'...

response by: zaayrdragon

Can a computer feel 'pain'? What is pain? Pain is a sensation carried through specific nerves into the brain where fear/threat responses react. Pain is a warning of potential or actual damage to the body. My computer has no such sensors, but it does have an antivirus - so perhaps its virus detection processing could be seen as 'pain'. Or other error-checking systems - like when a program freezes up. Or the heat sensor on my CPU - perhaps, when the heat gets too high, the computer feels 'pain'. It's certainly a viable belief.

A computer would not sense heat directly. A thermal sensor (such as a thermistor or thermal junction device) would convert the heat into a voltage level. The voltage level would be converted into a binary number by an ADC (or analog to digital converter). The CPU would the recieve the binary number. The software that is running on the cpu would interpret that binary number into a temperature reading by refrencing it to stored data such as a temperature scale and a stored response (such as turning on a fan). In essence the CPU or computer would "experiance" or sense the heat abstractly. The binary number generated by the sensor/thermistor is an abstract representing heat, not the actual heat itself.

[uruk]

Hmmm. so does this mean that to the computer the outside world does not exist? I mean it has no way to prove wether the sensory information being fed into it is directly of a real world or a geek feeding the information via it's keyboard. Right?

Perhaps I've gone too far.

[Z]

Originally posted by uruk
A computer would not sense heat directly. A thermal sensor (such as a thermistor or thermal junction device) would convert the heat into a voltage level. The voltage level would be converted into a binary number by an ADC (or analog to digital converter). The CPU would the recieve the binary number. The software that is running on the cpu would interpret that binary number into a temperature reading by refrencing it to stored data such as a temperature scale and a stored response (such as turning on a fan). In essence the CPU or computer would "experiance" or sense the heat abstractly. The binary number generated by the sensor/thermistor is an abstract representing heat, not the actual heat itself.

Very much like a human.

Let me demonstrate:

A brain would not sense heat directly. A thermal sensor (such as a heat-detecting nerve cell) would convert the heat into a neurochemical signal (actually, would produce a neurochemical signal in response to the detected heat). The signal would then travel from nerve cell to nerve cell until it reaches the brain. The brain would the recieve the neurochemical signal. The signal processing that is running in the rain would interpret that signal into a temperature reading by referencing it to stored memories such as a temperature scale and a stored response (such as jerking one's hand away). In essence the brain would "experience" or sense the heat abstractly. The neurochemical signal generated by the nerve cell is an abstract representing heat, not the actual heat itself.

Ergo - what cause have we to assume that a computer does not feel 'heat' or 'pain'?

[wraith]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Then what is your definition of conscious? What is the dividing line that makes an ant conscious but not a computer?

conscious: to perceive

Does an ant posses consciousness? Perhaps, although it may be very weak. Ants have the ability to evolve, not a computer.

As near as I can make out, any thought processing - any input processing - is a form of consciousness. Humans possess a complex consciousness

Indeed

ants and calculators a simple consciousness.

Ants perhaps....a calculator on the other hand....I dont think so.

Or are we to add 'self-aware' into the mix? In which case, computers (some) are still conscious.

If this was the case, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

What else will you add to the definition to separate organic consciousness from inorganic consciousness? Or lower forms (like plants) from upper forms (like men)?

Consciousness seems to evolve.
Matter doesnt.
Take a very simple life like a single celled organism. This can evolve to a complex consciousness. Anything else can not.

[wraith]

Originally posted by uruk
[B]The complexity of the organizim faciltates the level conciousness. We have conciouseness because our brain has the sufficient level of neural complexity to maintain what we would call conciousness. An ape is self-aware and aware of it's surrondings enough to solve problems on thier level, such as getting at termite and ants by stripping the leaves off a twig and insering it into a ant or termite hill. This is rudimentary tool building. Our brains are larger with higher concentrations of neurons. As a result, our problem solving capabilities and self awarness are much higher or complex.

This doesnt change anything. You can only call something conscious if it is conscious, not because it has reached a certain complexity.

Not "instructions". There is no "concious thought" in the laws of nature that would "make a recipe" for conciousness. The carrier of conciouseness (the brain) is composed of elements organized into various compounds. Carbon, sodium, potasium, iron, calcium, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. That organization took millions of years of random interactions, coincidental events and favorable evironmental conditions, one building upon each other to produce conciousness. It happened because there was nothing in nature to prevent it from happening. From a certain point of view you can say that conciousness had no choice but to come into existance because it was not dissallowed.

Why not? It seems like you're saying that the laws of nature had the "tools" for conscious thought inbuilt. If not, would appear that the laws of nature is exceeding itself in what it can do.

That what I said. "Life" is a lable just like "conciousness" is a label. Life is label we give certain set of chemical reactions.

"We" label things as "life" ie conciousness. Matter doesnt label "life" to matter.

Conciousness is a label we give to a certain level of self-awarness brought about by a certain level of complexity in our brains. That level of self-awarness gives us the ability to investigate and ponder and to label such things.

Disregarding what you said about how consciousness comes about, I maiintain that you can only call something conscious if it is conscious, not because it has reached a certain complexity.

"life" and "conciousness" comes from the complex organization of "lifeless" and "unconcious" elements of nature.

What elements? Matter or the laws?

Actually the univers becomes more complex on a local level. The universe ultimately increases it's entropy through the local increase in complexity.
What million other paths could conciousness have taken to come into being? Can you give examples?

I wasnt saying that consciousness had a million paths to choose from. I was saying that this universe could have taken another path over a million others that didnt involve consciousness.

I would venture to say that conciousness took this particular path in this tiny part of the universe because of the local conditions.

Even so, we would still be having this discussion.

Perhaps conciousness took a different path in another part of the universe where local conditions were favorable for a different form of conciousness. We can't know untill we encounter it. All we know is our little corner of the universe.

It's possible, but the question of why the laws lead to consciousness still stands.

[Z]

Matter doesn't evolve?

How did you think ants got here in the first place???

But aside from that, what evolution in consciousness do you perceive?

It seems to me, Wraith, that you're not looking clearly at this. Consciousness doesn't 'evolve' within an organism. There are degrees of consciousness from one level of species to another, but this simply means that our computers are ants, our calculators microbes.

It seems like you simply object to calling a non-living organism 'conscious' - yet you seem to have no reason for doing so.


Adding 'free will' to the definition of consciousness is a hopeless maneuver, as we can't even decide whether we really, truly have free will or not. Adding 'life' is a meaningless addition, as there is nothing in the description of 'life' that alters the act of sensory input and information processing. And almost every definition of 'life' can be created artificially to some degree - I would guess, every form could be, if someone were willing to do it.

Evolution? Are you claiming that you have to evolve to be conscious? That seems crazy - the two concepts are not dependent upon each other - and, after all, machines are evolving as much as any species - faster than most - just through external rather than internal means.

So I have to say you've gained no ground, wraith - why is an ant conscious and a computer not conscious?

[Z]

Wraith, let's back a step up - Give us YOUR definition, as precise as you can make it, of 'consciousness'.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
What we call 'consciousness' is nothing more than data processing. When a structure reacts by internal process to some external stimuli, it's conscious. Our computers are conscious. Our cars are conscious. No, they don't think - but they take input, process it, and act to produce output.

But he asked about 'life'. Not 'consciousness' - though I would argue, the two are linked, though possibly a thing can be conscious without being alive. Guess what? Everything is composed of an internal structure or, nature. While at the same time processes, in some form or another, external stimuli from its environment. So what you seem to suggest, in which case I would tend to concur, is cosmic consciousness. Hmm ... So guess what? You've just identified the will of the Creator and, have established that God exists ... If you're correct about inanimate things having conscioussness, that is. ;)

[Z]

Does anybody else hear that? That mosquito buzzing about??

So the will of the creator is random process? God is what, the universe as a whole, whose intent seems to be to slowly dissipate into nothingness while creating localized complexity??

I wish there were specific options for 'exclude member X' on these topics...

[Iacchus]

"Yes, even inanimate things can have consciousness." Hey, you're the one who said it, not me. :p

So the will of the creator is random process? God is what, the universe as a whole, whose intent seems to be to slowly dissipate into nothingness while creating localized complexity??Actually, the Universe is but a subset of God -- i.e., why it's called His Creation -- which, is why He is capable of standing outside of time and space.


I wish there were specific options for 'exclude member X' on these topics...Oh, does that exclude lifegazer too? :D

[uruk]

This doesnt change anything. You can only call something conscious if it is conscious, not because it has reached a certain complexity. I think your missing the point of my post. It is because of the complexity we have conciousness. If that neural complexity was not there, we would not be concious. (at least not at our level of conciousness)
Why not? It seems like you're saying that the laws of nature had the "tools" for conscious thought inbuilt. If not, would appear that the laws of nature is exceeding itself in what it can do. The laws of nature do not "use tools". In a manner of speaking, the laws of nature ARE "the tools". Conciousness came into existance with the present set of laws because there is nothing in the laws that says "conciousness can't happen". Everything that happens in our mind and body does so because the of the laws of nature. Atoms and forces and so on. It is the pattern, the arrangement of atoms and forces that is "life" and "conciousness""We" label things as "life" ie conciousness. Matter doesnt label "life" to matter. "WE" are matter. We are composed of matter. And it is this particular arranegemnt of matter that labels itself "life". You don't see it that way because you make the assumption that conciousness is immaterial just as I make the assumption (so far) that conciousness is derived from the material. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on the subject. I have my reasons why I believe the way I do and you have your reasons for your beliefs. That we have "conciousness" is moot. We are just debating our beliefs and definitions.
Disregarding what you said about how consciousness comes about, I maiintain that you can only call something conscious if it is conscious, not because it has reached a certain complexity. I reiterate, It is because of the complexity of neurons in our brains that we are capable of conciousness. If we had no brains, we would not have conciousness.What elements? Matter or the laws? Both.
I wasnt saying that consciousness had a million paths to choose from. I was saying that this universe could have taken another path over a million others that didnt involve consciousness. It's a possibility, but they are paths that were never taken. If it had, we wouldn't be here to debate. Even so, we would still be having this discussion. I'm sorry if I am missunderstanding this statement. Are you saying that if conciousnes never developed in this part of the universe we would still be "concious" enough to disscuss it?It's possible, but the question of why the laws lead to consciousness still stands. Well that's one of the BIG questions. But I, for one, would not be quick to say "god did it" untill I have seen some evidence.

I wouldn't say that "the laws lead to conciousness". (That is still implying that there is some sort of concious designeing of the laws with the ultimate purpose of creating conciousness. I have not seen any evidence to support this idea.), I would say "that conciousness is possible because of the laws".

[uruk]

conscious: to perceive Your going to have to narrow that down abit more.Does an ant posses consciousness? Perhaps, although it may be very weak. Ants have the ability to evolve, not a computer. Obviously you've never seen the Eniac. Computers do evolve. They just evolve through us. (with a little help of computer aided design and manufacturing.)

I know it's not exactly the same thing, but our technology does evolve based on similar conditions and environment.

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, does that exclude lifegazer too? :D

No, lifegazer actually tries to have an intelligent discussion. He's just willfully ignorant, not downright silly.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"Yes, even inanimate things can have consciousness." Hey, you're the one who said it, not me. :p

Actually, the Universe is but a subset of God -- i.e., why it's called His Creation -- which, is why He is capable of standing outside of time and space.


Oh, does that exclude lifegazer too? :D

"he" "His" ???
My friend you can not prove a god if you could how can you prove it has a gender and that gender is male.

What Are the determining factors making it male?
Does it have male genitalia?
A higher testosterone to estrogen ratio?


What is “out side time and space� is this a realm of existence ( it must be)?
If it is who created it?
For one must come first either a God or this realm of “out side time and space�.
Therefor also as to your philosophy both the “out side time and space� realm of existence needed to be created, then your God could be created to reside there.

Of course an even greater god then the one which created yours would have to created a realm of existence and then that god.

Of course an even greater god then the one which created yours would have to created a realm of existence and then that god.

Of course an even greater god then the one which created yours would have to created a realm of existence and then that god.
And so on it goes back without beginning.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, lifegazer actually tries to have an intelligent discussion. He's just willfully ignorant, not downright silly.
Iachus' beliefs are no less rational than your own. That's a rational fact...

I rarely talk to you any more because you don't even seem to realise or care how much of what you say depends upon absolute assumption and consequent belief.

If I ever detect that your mind has become OPEN to the above fact - and I'm not holding my breath - then I will start taking you seriously again.

I find you to be neither open nor sincere. In fact, imo, you are the classical 'sheep' that just parrots the expected mantras of contemporary sheep-culture.
In short, I think you're thick.

... Though you could prove me wrong one day and have the balls to challenge your own beliefs.
But you fear to do so. If they fall, so does Z-dragon.
... So, not just a sheep; but a sheep trying to avoid it's own demise.
Hence the voluminosity of your baas. Hence my relative silence.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Computers can't be conscious because they cannot perform calculations upon infinitely long numbers like pi.

where as quantum computers like the human brain are based in the physical world and depend upon the uncertainty principal, and fractal operations there in, and so can deal with infinitely long variables.

A binary computer can only exist in a finite number of states, the mind can exist in any number of states and can go on changing indefinitely, not repeatedly entering the same state over and over again.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Iachus' beliefs are no less rational than your own. That's a rational fact...

I rarely talk to you any more because you don't even seem to realise or care how much of what you say depends upon absolute assumption and consequent belief.

If I ever detect that your mind has become OPEN to the above fact - and I'm not holding my breath - then I will start taking you seriously again.

I find you to be neither open nor sincere. In fact, imo, you are the classical 'sheep' that just parrots the expected mantras of contemporary sheep-culture.
In short, I think you're thick.

... Though you could prove me wrong one day and have the balls to challenge your own beliefs.
But you fear to do so. If they fall, so does Z-dragon.
... So, not just a sheep; but a sheep trying to avoid it's own demise.
Hence the voluminosity of your baas. Hence my relative silence.

Wrong again, ape-boy! I've challenged my beliefs on every potential level. I've even weighed the possibility of your beliefs previously - and I'm comfortable right where I am. No chance of falling there - and no chance of who I am ceasing to be who I am, barring major physical trauma or death.

Frankly, I know the reason you never reply to my posts. You can wrap it in smug superiority all you like, but the simple fact is, you don't have the intelligence, logic, reason, or education to address my posts. I've even gone so far as to assume your philosophy were true for several post, just to demonstrate the logical consequences of said philosophy - and even provided a perfectly reasonable way for you to still hold your beliefs and not look like a total posterior.

Yet you merely continue to bleat out your own misunderstandings and fallacies as if they had any basis at all, and choose to allow my posts to go unchallenged. This, of course, is just fine with me, seeing as they are not for your benefit - you, of course, are beyond any help I might offer - but for the benefit of those few who may read your trash and think - even if only for a moment -that you might be making sense.

Looking back, in fact, I see that you seriously started not-responding to my posts way back on the Infinite Space issue.

In other words, any time I clearly demonstrate you as being just absolutely wrong, and you have nothing to say back except the usual mantras of your faith.

But Iacchus needs serious mental help - far more than you do - for his OWN good. And his contributions to threads are often nothing but pseudo-wise babblings that try to turn every statement into a demonstration of purpose, intent, and God.

In the end, his posts are just off-putting in general, IMO.

Yours, on the other hand, are sure to ensure a chuckle, if not a downright guffaw.

[Z]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
Computers can't be conscious because they cannot perform calculations upon infinitely long numbers like pi.

where as quantum computers like the human brain are based in the physical world and depend upon the uncertainty principal, and fractal operations there in, and so can deal with infinitely long variables.

A binary computer can only exist in a finite number of states, the mind can exist in any number of states and can go on changing indefinitely, not repeatedly entering the same state over and over again.

When's the last time your brain calculated anything based on the infintely long value of pi?

Strike three! You're outta here!!

So consciousness, to you, represents a particular state of cerebral complexity? This would, of course, mean that nothing without a sufficiently complex brain could be conscious, in your opinion. It also means that the quantum computers currently being conceived might well be conscious whenever they get made, yes?

So what is it about a quantum computer that equates to consciousness? So far, we have a single definition posited: 'perception'. Binary computers perceive as well - so obviously, IYO, this is not a suitable definition of consciousness. Please, ducktapeboy, enlighten us with YOUR definition of 'consciousness'.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, lifegazer actually tries to have an intelligent discussion. He's just willfully ignorant, not downright silly. Silly? Is there anything sillier than suggesting everything is merely relative and then expecting everyone to take you seriously? :p

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Frankly, I know the reason you never reply to my posts. You can wrap it in smug superiority all you like, but the simple fact is, you don't have the intelligence, logic, reason, or education to address my posts. I've even gone so far as to assume your philosophy were true for several post, just to demonstrate the logical consequences of said philosophy - and even provided a perfectly reasonable way for you to still hold your beliefs and not look like a total posterior. Hmm ... very interesting.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by uruk
I think your missing the point of my post. It is because of the complexity we have conciousness. If that neural complexity was not there, we would not be concious. (at least not at our level of conciousness) The complexity of what? The Universe as whole? If not, then where does that complexity arise? Are you willing to wager that the Universe created itself wholly "on the fly?" Hmm ... just popped up out of nowhere huh? :con2:

Yes, I agree that complexity has something to do with it, however, the brain arose out of the "complexity" of the environment, not the other way around. So, if complexity already existed prior to our being conscious, is it possible that complexity as "a whole," reflects an even greater consciousness as a whole? What other purpose would complexity serve then?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
"he" "His" ???
My friend you can not prove a god if you could how can you prove it has a gender and that gender is male.

What Are the determining factors making it male?
Does it have male genitalia?
A higher testosterone to estrogen ratio?Perhaps one way to look at it would be to view God, the Creator, as the Eternal masculine aspect, and the Universe, that which God Creates, the Eternal feminine aspect? I agree, it would be wrong to suggest God exists without his feminine side.


What is “out side time and space� is this a realm of existence ( it must be)? Do your thoughts exist outside of time and space? If not, then where exactly would you ascribe time and space within your dreams? It's another reality entirely don't you think? Yet it's the same reality which is the life of you and, is tied to your thoughts.


If it is who created it?
For one must come first either a God or this realm of “out side time and space�.
Therefor also as to your philosophy both the “out side time and space� realm of existence needed to be created, then your God could be created to reside there.Again, consider the space that exists between your ears. It doesn't "register" within time and space does it? No, in fact it doesn't ... Unless of course you're willing to consider that this is what time and space is comprised of.


Of course an even greater god then the one which created yours would have to created a realm of existence and then that god.

Of course an even greater god then the one which created yours would have to created a realm of existence and then that god.

Of course an even greater god then the one which created yours would have to created a realm of existence and then that god.
And so on it goes back without beginning. Except you're still stuck with the notion of how the Universe came into existence. How exactly would you go about explaining that? If it's something which has always been, why can't you ascribe the same notion to a God which has always been? In fact that makes even more sense, because the material Universe (according to Science) seems to have arrived from the Big Bang. So, what was there before the Big Bang? ... if it wasn't material and, in fact stood outside of time and space, which hadn't been created yet.

[Z]

Iacchus, for the millionth time: dreams are not real. The perceived spacetime within a dream has no more functional reality than the perceived spacetime of a video game. Thoughts exist in material form. Personality is a material process. Dreams are a material process.

1) Get mental help. Quickly.
2) Go back to school. Pick up lifegazer on your way there.
3) Move out of your momma's basement.
4) Eat more Smartfood.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus


Greetings Iacchus

I guess it would be silly on my part to say I am disappointed to again find you refuse to answer questions, refuse to conduct a logical, respectful scholarly exchange of ideas and beliefs instead we find more dancing around questions and your seeking to tell me what to believe.

Rather then sit and exchange ideas and thoughts seeking out friends to talk you like our friend Lifegazer seek disciples, ones who will simply shut up and follow blindly tell you of your great wisdom.

You have decided what you want truth to be and then seek to fit realities into it, I seek to find what truth is having no preconceived desires or needs.

I will again post my questions and hope you will as a friend does, as I do and many others here, simply answer what is asked and exchange ideas.

I will also as a friend and who has nothing to hide answer your points and questions.

First to my questions.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
"he" "His" ???
My friend you can not prove a god if you could how can you prove it has a gender and that gender is male.

What Are the determining factors making it male?
Does it have male genitalia?
A higher testosterone to estrogen ratio?

You “responded�

Perhaps one way to look at it would be to view God, the Creator, as the Eternal masculine aspect, and the Universe, that which God Creates, the Eternal feminine aspect?


If you wish to do or believe that I respect that, I respect that as a belief, but nothing more.


Other then the fact you ignored my question, you then start out with a belief “god� acting as it were fact it is of course not in any way. Then you purpose that this belief, “created� the universe, which is again only a belief not based in any fact then you end by saying the universe is female.

1- what do you use to support this belief?
2-What Are the determining factors making it female?
3-Does the universe have female genitalia?
4- Does the universe have A higher testosterone to estrogen ratio?

I agree, it would be wrong to suggest God exists without his feminine side.

I do not suggest that a god exist at all, I can not know or car really but respect you do. To me it is irrelevant. There very well may be a god or gods or giant yellow easter bunnies but I see no supporting evidence.


I asked you a simple question as to your statement of fact concerning “ outside of space and time� . I asked
What is “out side time and space� is this a realm of existence ( it must be)?

You refused to answer and only responded answering a question with a question.
The mature and respectful thing to do is if you do not know or can not answer just say so.

You wrote Do your thoughts exist outside of time and space? .

Answer my question tell me what it is and I can answer this, OK?

If not, then where exactly would you ascribe time and space within your dreams?


So you are saying your god exist in your dreams only, I would agree with you here.


It's another reality entirely don't you think? Yet it's the same reality which is the life of you and, is tied to your thoughts.

I asked, is this outside of space and time a realm of existence, is it? Please stop dancing and answer.

I believe in the greatest reality what we see in the physical and in a dream state are both illusion .

As Einstein said Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one

Let me ask you this ( crossing fingers for a real response)
1- if in one of your dreams you win a million dollars when you wake is it in your bank account?
2- If in your dream you get hit by a car and did, have you really died? Or will you again be alive in your next dream as “you?

When you did in the physical world, this life there will never be again a you a Iacchus.



I asked
If it is who created it?
For one must come first either a God or this realm of “out side time and space�.
Therefor also as to your philosophy both the “out side time and space� realm of existence needed to be created, then your God could be created to reside there.

You again rudely would not answer and answered a question with a question.


Again, consider the space that exists between your ears. It doesn't "register" within time and space does it? No, in fact it doesn't ... Unless of course you're willing to consider that this is what time and space is comprised of.


I can consider that a 100’ purple easter bunny will come to my home today, what is your point with all the considering? I can consider anything.

May I ask that you consider your beliefs are wrong?


Between my ears is matter like all things are comprised of.

What do you mean “ it does not "register" within time and space does it�? You again say something is “fact� but offer no fact.




Except you're still stuck with the notion of how the Universe came into existence.


My friend I am not stuck on anything I have no preconceived beliefs that I grasp endlessly to as if if they are wrong I will die, I have no personal attachment with my beliefs. I will believe anything that is proven to be truth.

You are the one who will not be open to anything other then what you want to believe.


I look to what can be known, what is known the facts, the clues leading to the birth of this universe and all such things.

I believe what Buddhism believes as to me it seems most logical and what science believes today, what the Buddha said 2600 years ago science is proving to be fact today.

Let me share with you an e-mail I got just today.

Friends:
Buddhism, Modern Science & Cosmology:

Modern cosmology have recently found out that the universe is not
in a steady state but undergoes periodic expansion (big bang) and
contraction. The blessed Buddha told of this > 2500 !!! years ago:

He said
"He recalls to mind his various temporary states in days gone by -
one birth, or two or three or four or 5 births, 10 or 20, 30 or 50,
a 100 or a 1000 or a 100.000 births, through many cycles of cosmic
contraction & cosmic expansion...
Now there comes a time, friends, when, sooner or later, after the
lapse of a long, long period of contraction, this world-system passes
away. And when this happens beings have mostly been reborn in the
World of Radiance, and there they dwell made of mind, feeding on
joy, radiating light from themselves, traversing the air, dwelling in
glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. Now there
comes also a time, friends, when, sooner or later, this universe begins
to re-evolve by expansion.

Digha Nikaya 1: Brahma-Jala Sutta

Time & space are not universal!

Albert Einstein presented the special & general relativity theory
almost a hundred years ago. Still the philosophical implications
is only known by a very few mathematicians.
Mainly Einstein's relativity theory points out that time & locality
in space cannot be regarded independent if the observer & object
is moving fast relative to each other. Differently moving
observers will experience different speeds of time even when
using the same watches. They will disagree on the order of
different events. A 'Universal' time do not exist:

Buddha also told about this > 2500 years ago . :
'Bhikkhus, 50 human years is one night & day to the four guardian gods.
500 of those divine years are the life span of the four guardian gods.
.
Bhikkhus, 1600 human years is one night and day to the gods with
power over other's creations. 16 thousand of those divine years
are the life span of these gods.' (Paranimmita-vasavatti-devas)
Anguttara Nikaya III.71: The Roots of the Uposatha
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-070.html

Matter is quanta of discrete events!

Another implication of both Einstein's theory & also of quantum
mechanics is that matter cannot be regarded to be continuously
existing in time nor in space. A movement of a body is therefore
absolutely speaking events of disappearance in one place & its
rearising in the next place. This process is though so incredible
fast, that we experience it as continuous existence. Exactly so do
the Higher Buddha-Dhamma ie: The Abhidhamma consider movement
of matter to be serial vanishing & re-arising in adjacent locations...

So modern Science even regarding physical phenomena (rupa)
is not so 'Modern' after all!!! Most seem to rediscovering of what was
known already 2 millenniums ago but ignored & forgotten as usual...

Hihihi ;-)
Friendship is the Greatest !

Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka.


How exactly would you go about explaining that?


Just as I did above and have always done. You have offered no answer then “ God did it�


If it's something which has always been, why can't you ascribe the same notion to a God which has always been?

I can and have always said I can. But I see no proof of God I do see and know that the universe is real, god is only a belief, a wish a desire.

It is you who can not be open to the fact that there may not be a god or gods.



In fact that makes even more sense, because the material Universe (according to Science) seems to have arrived from the Big Bang.


I believe in endless such events, we can clearly see in life that all things are “born� come together and then die/ come apart to again come together in another form.


So, what was there before the Big Bang? ... if it wasn't material and, in fact stood outside of time and space, which hadn't been created yet.

I never said that, please read what I say, answer ONE question….lol

Lets sit as friends and stop telling people what to believe and instead exchange ideas. You and LG have a great deal to offer but have nothing to force or demand.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Ducktapeboy, yes that is a better name, the one I've got is pretty stupid..


it is not the complexity of a system which leads to consciousness, just upon which the system is based.

ants could be conscious to some extent just because of their brain's configuration(ie neural network).

computers just follow code instructions, there is no room for free will, regardless of sensory input.

the operation upon pi is just an example but yes, your brain does have to operate in the real world which means having to produce nerve out puts to the arms etc, which in a computer would have to be calculated using pi, sine etc..

the material world as some people put it is under rated, there are many magical things at the quantum level.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

adding on to my previous post.

I think that is a generally excepted convention to refer to ships a "her" or "she", they are female or at least thought of as such although if you look at a ship from an engineering point of view, it doesn't have any physical aspects of a female.

god is reffered to in the same way(but as male).

[Z]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
Ducktapeboy, yes that is a better name, the one I've got is pretty stupid..


it is not the complexity of a system which leads to consciousness, just upon which the system is based.

ants could be conscious to some extent just because of their brain's configuration(ie neural network).

computers just follow code instructions, there is no room for free will, regardless of sensory input.

the operation upon pi is just an example but yes, your brain does have to operate in the real world which means having to produce nerve out puts to the arms etc, which in a computer would have to be calculated using pi, sine etc..

the material world as some people put it is under rated, there are many magical things at the quantum level.

Then you also understand that 'free will' is an illusion, and we have no more free will than an advanced computer would - and hence, no more 'consciousness' as that same computer.

[Throg]

Hello. I feel rude jumping in right at the end of the thread but the stuff being discussed is just too interesting. In no particular order:

Lifegazer: I may have missed someone pointing this out but serfs did have choice, even robots (the extremely opressed serfs of the bohemian feudal system). Not unlimited choice - they could not transform into giant apes at will or own anything much but insofar as the term choice means anything at all, they had some choice. Come to think of it, since even slaves can choose to rebel, there is no category of sentient being which can be said to lack choice purely in virtue of the category ascribed to it.

H'ethetheth Your explanation of the illusion of choice in a deterministic materialistic universe is impeccable. I would suggest, however, that what you describe as "illusion of choice" and choice are actually one and the same thing. One acts in accordance with one's desires and reasoning and that is choice; that one cannot choose the conformation of the neural structures which determine what we choose does not make it any less choice on our part, that would put us in the position of losing the meaning of the term choice in the same sort of infinite regress which occurs with the idea of a primal source - I can only choose if I can choose how I choose and if I can choose how I choose how I choose to choose ...

Uruk I would agree with you that systemic complexity is likely a necessary prerequisite of consciousness but I don't think we can say with any certainty that complexity alone is sufficient. It seems to me that the particular structure of the system and the manner in which the components of that system are inter-related is also likely to be a factor.

zaayrdragon You suggest that the single definition so far proposed for consciousness has been 'perception' but it seems to me the single necessary component (not definition) of consciousness thus far proposed in this thread has been 'awareness' which is not at all the same thing.

Thankyou for your time. Please ignore me or throw things at me as you see fit.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Throg
... I can only choose if I can choose how I choose and if I can choose how I choose how I choose to choose ...
Hmmm, can 'the chooser' choose to not choose ... ;)

It seems to me that the particular structure of the system and the manner in which the components of that system are inter-related is also likely to be a factor.
Indeed, and I posit science will never demonstrate sufficiency. I.E. Perhaps 'awareness' chooses to utilize the structure provided -- but may not.

....but it seems to me the single necessary component (not definition) of consciousness thus far proposed in this thread has been 'awareness' which is not at all the same thing.
Nicely put. Now, is non-life(matter) "aware"?


Thankyou for your time. Please ignore me or throw things at me as you see fit.
:) Welcome, and yeah, we (or at least I) throw things, sometimes. :(

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings Iacchus

I guess it would be silly on my part to say I am disappointed to again find you refuse to answer questions, refuse to conduct a logical, respectful scholarly exchange of ideas and beliefs instead we find more dancing around questions and your seeking to tell me what to believe. Careful now, we must not give in to any "preconceived" notions which might cause disappointment.

You have decided what you want truth to be and then seek to fit realities into it, I seek to find what truth is having no preconceived desires or needs.Not so.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Then you also understand that 'free will' is an illusion, and we have no more free will than an advanced computer would - and hence, no more 'consciousness' as that same computer. Why, does this somehow explain why you feel so "compelled" to type out such nonsense on your computer? And yet it involves just a little bit more than "going along for the ride," don't you think? ;) What is it about "you" that participates in things, willingly or otherwise?

[Z]

OK, to Throg: What, then, is 'awareness'? It almost sounds like tacking yet another layer over 'perception' in order to justify a separation of degrees between life and non-life - but can a computer not be 'aware' as well? And what fomrs of life, and in what stages of life, is awareness present?

Again, a precise definition might be useful here.

Iacchus - Everything is 'going along for the ride', even when you deliberately do something - in essence, you're just doing what you would have done anyway - even if that means doing something against your nature.

[uruk]

The complexity of what? The Universe as whole? If not, then where does that complexity arise? Are you willing to wager that the Universe created itself wholly "on the fly?" Hmm ... just popped up out of nowhere huh? Well, "poped-out-of-nowhere" as we understand "nowhere". I have yet to see any evidence or proof other than conjecture and specious thinking that a god or something "supernatural" created the universe. Yes, I agree that complexity has something to do with it, however, the brain arose out of the "complexity" of the environment, not the other way around. So, if complexity already existed prior to our being conscious, is it possible that complexity as "a whole," reflects an even greater consciousness as a whole? What other purpose would complexity serve then? Conciousness is derived form the specific complexity of our neurons. As Throg pointed out:

"Uruk I would agree with you that systemic complexity is likely a necessary prerequisite of consciousness but I don't think we can say with any certainty that complexity alone is sufficient. It seems to me that the particular structure of the system and the manner in which the components of that system are inter-related is also likely to be a factor."

Again we differ in our view because you feel or believe that there is a purpose or reason to the existance of the univers. I do not. I have not seen any purpose or reason for it's existance other than to "just exist". If there is a diety, it's reasons and existance are kept quite inscrutable.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
... And what fomrs of life, and in what stages of life, is awareness present?

Again, a precise definition might be useful here.


Gee, you think so?

I vaguely recall asking you to define the line separating non-life from life, and explain why you would believe it to be there. ;)

Does my question finally make sense now?

[uruk]

Uruk I would agree with you that systemic complexity is likely a necessary prerequisite of consciousness but I don't think we can say with any certainty that complexity alone is sufficient. It seems to me that the particular structure of the system and the manner in which the components of that system are inter-related is also likely to be a factor.
I agree. The complexity of that particular system structure and inter-relations is from where conciousness is derived. Our fellow animals all display varing levels of self-awarness, conciousness and problem solving skills based on the complexity of thier respective neural systems.

[uruk]

vaguely recall asking you to define the line separating non-life from life, and explain why you would believe it to be there. I believe his response was that the dividing line between life and non-life is a hazy one at best. There are certain things which definitely ride that hazy line such as prions, viruses and so forth.

Remeber the gray scale?

[Throg]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hmmm, can 'the chooser' choose to not choose ... ;)



It gets worse if we posit a primal source, then the chooser could be chosen to choose to choose or not to choose ... that is the hideous run-on sentence.

Indeed, and I posit science will never demonstrate sufficiency. I.E. Perhaps 'awareness' chooses to utilize the structure provided -- but may not

I tend to agree with you that science will never demonstrate sufficiency but I think that is the case because the term consciousness is too fuzzy and because it's presence can only be confirmed by oneself. We cannot confirm or refute that the things we generally accept as conscious actually are conscious much less the things we don't generally accept as conscious.

Nicely put. Now, is non-life(matter) "aware"?

That's really difficult. I don't think we've come to a satisfactory definition of life in this thread which is unsurprising because I have yet to come across a satisfactory definition anywhere. The working definitions used in biology are quite clearly working definitons and prone to counter-example. So you're really asking is a form of matter which has some characteristics which we're not really sure about possessed of another characteristic we can't even conceive of a way to measure? Don't know. I will go so far as to say that I see no reason in principle why non-organic matter could not attain awareness given the correct structural characteristics.

Welcome, and yeah, we (or at least I) throw things, sometimes.

Thanks for the welcom and the warning.

[Throg]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
OK, to Throg: What, then, is 'awareness'? It almost sounds like tacking yet another layer over 'perception' in order to justify a separation of degrees between life and non-life - but can a computer not be 'aware' as well? And what fomrs of life, and in what stages of life, is awareness present?



Yeah, sorry about that but I try to work with the language as it exists rather than try to make things artificially easy by redefining things. That just sems so lazy. And let me say at the outset that I see no reason why a computer could not be aware and conscious. Current computers give me no reason to suppose that they are but I suspect they will get theire one day.


Again, a precise definition might be useful here.

O.K, how's this from "A Dictionary of Psychology" by James Drever:

Mere experience of an object or idea; sometimes equivalent to consciousness.

Succinct. A nice simple basis for us to immediately disagree with. Actually, I'm not to thrilled with "sometimes" but I think it's right to identify experience as the crucial characteristic of consciousness. It is not the fact that data from my sense organs causes changes in my neuronal potentials that makes me conscious it is that I experience something as a result. I take that to mean, the perceptual data has subjective meaning or value for me. I don't think that counts in the least against the possibility of conscious computers but it does tend to count against conscious pebbles, photoreceptors and possibly ants.

Looking up references - that's like work, you know.

[Throg]

Originally posted by uruk
I agree. The complexity of that particular system structure and inter-relations is from where conciousness is derived. Our fellow animals all display varing levels of self-awarness, conciousness and problem solving skills based on the complexity of thier respective neural systems.

We have to be careful to recognise that there are differences in structural composition as well as complexity. Even ignoring functional divisions in the neocortex, reptiles have no neocortex and from insects on down I'm really not sure we could say there is a brain at all. More of a ganglion.

No argument when it comes to displaying problem solving skills and the relationship to neural complexity. I also think it's safe there is good indirect evidence of self-awareness in mammals at least but I tend to be especially cautious here because I recognise a strong desire in myself to believe that all of our fellow animals are conscious. Perhaps perversely, I think we should, while remaining sceptical, act as if we give animals the benefit of the doubt. If we treat a thing with no consciousness as though it had consciousness we look foolish but if we treat a thing with consciousness as if it had none we are cruel.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Throg
If we treat a thing with no consciousness as though it had consciousness we look foolish but if we treat a thing with consciousness as if it had none we are cruel. Yet animals don't seem to make that distinction when they devour each other do they?

[Throg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet animals don't seem to make that distinction when they devour each other do they?

No they don't. Either they are evil or their degree of intelligence and ability to discuss abstract concepts with one another are generally too limited for them to give proper consideration to the morality of their actions. I'll have to give some thought to which of those is true.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Throg
No they don't. Either they are evil or their degree of intelligence and ability to discuss abstract concepts with one another are generally too limited for them to give proper consideration to the morality of their actions. I'll have to give some thought to which of those is true.
LOL.

Perhaps our materialists would like to contend "language -- with subsets including morality, ethics, science, etc." is also matter?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by hammegk
LOL.

Perhaps our materialists would like to contend "language -- with subsets including morality, ethics, science, etc." is also matter?

No - patterned energy.

[hammegk]

I'd agree that all of 'what-is' is patterned energy. Now if we could just correctly define the essence of "energy", huh?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by hammegk
I'd agree that all of 'what-is' is patterned energy. Now if we could just correctly define the essence of "energy", huh?

I think we both know that involves an assumption.

[hammegk]

Actually, I suspect we agree that "energy fields" exist. Does a quark, or a boson?

Are strings -- should they exist -- matter? Or energy?

Are any of those entities not aware of, and respond to, their surroundings in a non-deterministic way -- by choice, one might say. ;)

[Throg]

Originally posted by hammegk
LOL.

Perhaps our materialists would like to contend "language -- with subsets including morality, ethics, science, etc." is also matter?

You do understand that I was being ironic? That I assumed it was so obvious that animals lacked the ability to consider and discuss morality that I felt safe to make a joke about it?

However, I would point out that there is no need for materialists to contend any conceptual category is composed either of matter or energy. It is merely necessary ot claim that conceptual categories are an abstraction produced by the fuzzy-logic-based mechanisms of our brain and the way information is correlated through the formation and destruction of connections between the neurons and, at a larger level, the neural nets of which our cortex is composed. One might say that the substrate or mechanism which supports conceptual categories is material but that is not to say the categories themselves are material. Do all non-materialists have to accept a Platonic model where language, ethics, science have real existence in an ideal realm?

[Z]

Originally posted by hammegk
Gee, you think so?

I vaguely recall asking you to define the line separating non-life from life, and explain why you would believe it to be there. ;)

Does my question finally make sense now?

I also vaguely recall giving you an answer. Or did you miss that because you're too busy looking for nits to pick?

[Z]

Originally posted by Throg
Yeah, sorry about that but I try to work with the language as it exists rather than try to make things artificially easy by redefining things. That just sems so lazy. And let me say at the outset that I see no reason why a computer could not be aware and conscious. Current computers give me no reason to suppose that they are but I suspect they will get theire one day.




O.K, how's this from "A Dictionary of Psychology" by James Drever:

Mere experience of an object or idea; sometimes equivalent to consciousness.

Succinct. A nice simple basis for us to immediately disagree with. Actually, I'm not to thrilled with "sometimes" but I think it's right to identify experience as the crucial characteristic of consciousness. It is not the fact that data from my sense organs causes changes in my neuronal potentials that makes me conscious it is that I experience something as a result. I take that to mean, the perceptual data has subjective meaning or value for me. I don't think that counts in the least against the possibility of conscious computers but it does tend to count against conscious pebbles, photoreceptors and possibly ants.

Looking up references - that's like work, you know.

Good - though that definition does present a problem, in that we further need a definition for 'experience'.

In general, AFAIK, experience relates to sensory input, data processing, and relational comparison to available memory - all processes the average modern computer undergoes regularly. If this is true, we have a case for conscious computers. Ants... well, I have no idea if the average worker or warrior ant has a 'memory' at all, rather than instinct - though it may be argued that instinct is simply a form of memory as well.

No, I don't think pebbles or photoreceptors are conscious. I don't think rivers or stars are conscious. I do think computers and fleas are conscious, and the dividing line between life and non-life might eventually become mortality alone. (Bicentennial Man, anyone?)

Still - we're advancing - somewhat.

[Z]

Originally posted by hammegk
LOL.

Perhaps our materialists would like to contend "language -- with subsets including morality, ethics, science, etc." is also matter?

Yep - every abstract concept is a neurochemical pattern within the brain.

Any other silly questions?

[Throg]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Good - though that definition does present a problem, in that we further need a definition for 'experience'.

In general, AFAIK, experience relates to sensory input, data processing, and relational comparison to available memory - all processes the average modern computer undergoes regularly. If this is true, we have a case for conscious computers.

If we go for a definition of experience we're going to get references to mental states which is going to end up taking us in a great big circle. My understanding of experience is that it implies attaching some value or significance to the data. We may, of course run into the problem that the word embodies the assumption that only Humans and closely related animals. After all the word long predates even the idea of thinking machines and it's not so long since the idea that any animal other than Humans could think or be conscious would have been considered outrageous. By your definition of experience, computers would most certainly be considered conscious but to me the definition seems to lack something of the essence of experience and consciousness (oh, that sounds scientific!) What would you think about ownership as a necessary component of consciousness: that for me to be considered to possess consciousness I must not only experience but have the sense that it is my experience? That seems like an important aspect of consciousness to me but I freely admit that I am struggling with a poorly defined concept (damn these neural nets!)

Ants... well, I have no idea if the average worker or warrior ant has a 'memory' at all, rather than instinct - though it may be argued that instinct is simply a form of memory as well.

Ants most definitely have memory but I'm just not convinced that is sufficient for consciousness. You could argue that instinct is a form of memory in the sense that it reflects behaviour "learned" through the evolutionary process but it's a stretch and I don't think it has any bearing on the question of consciousness.

I do think computers and fleas are conscious, and the dividing line between life and non-life might eventually become mortality alone. (Bicentennial Man, anyone?)

I hope not. I thought that was an outrageous decision. He could only be considered Human if he was willing to cease being superior to us? What hubris! To me, all that mattered was that he was a conscious being. That should be absolutely sufficient (and possibly necessary) for anything to be given full rights as a sentient being (I can't bring myself to use the words Human rights in light of the bigotted connotation it seems to have attained since you brought up Bicentennial Man). Hmm, that's a really good example of a film and book (The Positronic Man) about the nature of consciousness. Maybe we should look there for inspiration as to the nature of consciousness.

Was Andrew conscious? I'm as certain as I can be that he was.
Were the other robots conscious (prior to Andrew's intervention)? My initial sense is that they were not but you have given me pause.

If there were differences between the degree or quality of their consciousnesses what were they and what was the significance?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Throg

You do understand that I was being ironic? That I assumed it was so obvious that animals lacked the ability to consider and discuss morality that I felt safe to make a joke about it?
You do understand I politely laughed at your joke?


However, I would point out that there is no need for materialists to contend any conceptual category is composed either of matter or energy. It is merely necessary ot claim that conceptual categories are an abstraction produced by the fuzzy-logic-based mechanisms of our brain and the way information is correlated through the formation and destruction of connections between the neurons and, at a larger level, the neural nets of which our cortex is composed. One might say that the substrate or mechanism which supports conceptual categories is material but that is not to say the categories themselves are material.

and also
Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Yep - every abstract concept is a neurochemical pattern within the brain.
The understanding of a concept (at HPC level) involves those issues, but why do either of you suggest the concept itself is "in" those brain states of yours?

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Any other silly questions?
Probably.

Originally posted by Throg

Do all non-materialists have to accept a Platonic model where language, ethics, science have real existence in an ideal realm?
I have no way of knowing, and have no good answer for even just myself. Within my worldview, and with no offer of proof, I tend to say 'yes'.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I also vaguely recall giving you an answer. Or did you miss that because you're too busy looking for nits to pick?
Your answer was basically "duh, I dunno", the same answer I have.

However, I choose to accept matter as -- may I say, an epiphenomena -- of (mind/life/awareness) rather than the opposite.

Perhaps we can agree (interactive) dualism of any form is nonsense?

[Z]

Originally posted by Throg
If we go for a definition of experience we're going to get references to mental states which is going to end up taking us in a great big circle. My understanding of experience is that it implies attaching some value or significance to the data. We may, of course run into the problem that the word embodies the assumption that only Humans and closely related animals. After all the word long predates even the idea of thinking machines and it's not so long since the idea that any animal other than Humans could think or be conscious would have been considered outrageous. By your definition of experience, computers would most certainly be considered conscious but to me the definition seems to lack something of the essence of experience and consciousness (oh, that sounds scientific!) What would you think about ownership as a necessary component of consciousness: that for me to be considered to possess consciousness I must not only experience but have the sense that it is my experience? That seems like an important aspect of consciousness to me but I freely admit that I am struggling with a poorly defined concept (damn these neural nets!)



Ants most definitely have memory but I'm just not convinced that is sufficient for consciousness. You could argue that instinct is a form of memory in the sense that it reflects behaviour "learned" through the evolutionary process but it's a stretch and I don't think it has any bearing on the question of consciousness.



I hope not. I thought that was an outrageous decision. He could only be considered Human if he was willing to cease being superior to us? What hubris! To me, all that mattered was that he was a conscious being. That should be absolutely sufficient (and possibly necessary) for anything to be given full rights as a sentient being (I can't bring myself to use the words Human rights in light of the bigotted connotation it seems to have attained since you brought up Bicentennial Man). Hmm, that's a really good example of a film and book (The Positronic Man) about the nature of consciousness. Maybe we should look there for inspiration as to the nature of consciousness.

Was Andrew conscious? I'm as certain as I can be that he was.
Were the other robots conscious (prior to Andrew's intervention)? My initial sense is that they were not but you have given me pause.

If there were differences between the degree or quality of their consciousnesses what were they and what was the significance?

Try reading "I, Robot", "Eight Stories from the Rest of the Robots", or even "The Complete Robot" by Asimov.

I'd argue that even Robbie was conscious - that each and every positronic robot was conscious. Even the car-robot (I can't think of her name!) in the beginning of "Complete".

But, ultimately, I don't see 'self-awareness' (which is a prerequisite for 'ownership' as a dividing factor for 'consciousness' - some do.

Words... messy sorts of things. Make you late for supper.

[Z]

Originally posted by hammegk
You do understand I politely laughed at your joke?



and also

The understanding of a concept (at HPC level) involves those issues, but why do either of you suggest the concept itself is "in" those brain states of yours?


Probably.


I have no way of knowing, and have no good answer for even just myself. Within my worldview, and with no offer of proof, I tend to say 'yes'.


Your answer was basically "duh, I dunno", the same answer I have.

However, I choose to accept matter as -- may I say, an epiphenomena -- of (mind/life/awareness) rather than the opposite.

Perhaps we can agree (interactive) dualism of any form is nonsense?

Ahhh... Reservedly, but I agree - ANY form of interactive dualism seems a bad thing. IN other words, the world is of just one 'stuff'. The key, then, is to determine what that 'stuff' is, and how it manifests.

This bypasses several messy points about the usual 'dualism' without utterly negating those things which I usually refer to as 'unreal' - i.e. not interacting with real things, save via conceptualism.

Still - the idea that 'ideals' exist seems an odd one to me - that somewhere, in the All-That-Is, perfect everything exists and that our matter-and-energy world is a poor reflection seems too incoherent for me to accept.

As for 'epiphenominalism' - another incoherent concept to me. How can a thing exist that affects nothing yet be detected in any way? For a thing to be detected, it must affect something - hence, either epiphenoms do not exist at all, or they exist and we can never in any way know about them.

Matter is clearly not in this category.

[Throg]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Try reading "I, Robot", "Eight Stories from the Rest of the Robots", or even "The Complete Robot" by Asimov.


Already read them but thanks they were good recommendations.

But, ultimately, I don't see 'self-awareness' (which is a prerequisite for 'ownership' as a dividing factor for 'consciousness' - some do.

Yes, I suppose I do, though I hadn't realised it until you pointed it out.

[Throg]

Originally posted by hammegk
You do understand I politely laughed at your joke?


Sorry, no I didn't understand. I demand belly-laughs, not polite titters. Anyway, sorry for mis-reading you.

The understanding of a concept (at HPC level) involves those issues, but why do either of you suggest the concept itself is "in" those brain states of yours?

Well, I don't suggest that the concept is "in" the brain states unless I'm being very careless with words at the time. What I suggest is that those concepts aren't anywhere. They are not things in the same sense as brains or tables or chairs. If I can use the O word, they are not of the same ontological category. That we can talk about and think about something does not imply either that it exists or could exist other than in the purest sense of logical possibility.

I'm not sure that answers your question but given that I missed your polite laugh I'll let you tell me before I make too many more incorrect assumptions.

I have no way of knowing, and have no good answer for even just myself. Within my worldview, and with no offer of proof, I tend to say 'yes'

There are non-materialists who do not believe that concepts must necessarily exist but I'll give one of them a chance to turn up before I mangle their beliefs trying to explain them.

Perhaps we can agree (interactive) dualism of any form is nonsense?

I've certainly yet to hear a cogent argument for interactive dualism. I've heard logical arguments for non-ineractive dualism but they all tend to render their conclusion irrelevant.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
computers just follow code instructions, there is no room for free will, regardless of sensory input.


Computers are perfectly capable of not only simulating neurons, but also quantum computers. A quantum computer just calculates many solutions simultaneously. Any problem a quantum computer can solve, a regular computer can solve. Secondly, show me any indication that the neuron relies on some quantum property.


the operation upon pi is just an example but yes, your brain does have to operate in the real world which means having to produce nerve out puts to the arms etc, which in a computer would have to be calculated using pi, sine etc..


Computers are perfectly capable using trigonomic functions and irrational numbers in the same way we do. Just because you have not worked with these math packages, does not mean they don't exist.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Throg
...H'ethetheth Your explanation of the illusion of choice in a deterministic materialistic universe is impeccable. I would suggest, however, that what you describe as "illusion of choice" and choice are actually one and the same thing. One acts in accordance with one's desires and reasoning and that is choice; that one cannot choose the conformation of the neural structures which determine what we choose does not make it any less choice on our part, that would put us in the position of losing the meaning of the term choice in the same sort of infinite regress which occurs with the idea of a primal source - I can only choose if I can choose how I choose and if I can choose how I choose how I choose to choose ... Thanks and I agree, but I'm sorry that I hadn't put it as clearly as I thought I had. The lack of distinction, at least to the chooser, is actually the thing I meant to bring to attention.
My opinion of what choice constitutes is merely somewhat different to what idealists may think, but I see no reason why the experience couldn't be the same in a material world.

Hammegk:

Thanks for clearing up your point of view, I was wondering whether or not you were ever going to give your own opinion on choice, but I think I can more or less distill it now and I disagree; I see very little reason to doubt that my brain-matter is capable of having evolved from non-life and capable of managing my consciousness all by itself. You see reasons to doubt this and that's fine, though unfortunately you have provided none of them yet.

We can only hope that science will settle this disagreement one day.

[Throg]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Thanks and I agree, but I'm sorry that I hadn't put it as clearly as I thought I had.

I wouldn't be sorry, clarity in this area is a rare wonder. That I could find one point in your post to clarify reflects only that it's much easier to edit than to create and I did only find one.

[Throg]

Originally posted by RussDill
Computers are perfectly capable using trigonomic functions and irrational numbers in the same way we do. Just because you have not worked with these math packages, does not mean they don't exist.

I would add that our nervous systems only seem to produce approximations of such functions anyway. I take your post to imply that anyway, I just like to get these things out in the open.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Throg
I would add that our nervous systems only seem to produce approximations of such functions anyway. I take your post to imply that anyway, I just like to get these things out in the open.

I think what he was refering to, is that when we work out problems, we don't use the approximation of Pi, we use the symbol for pi, or the infinite series, and express our answer either in terms of pi, or as whole numbers, if Pi drops out. Whereas computers, take the approximation of Pi, and come out with an approximate answer.

This is of course, only one of the many ways computers can calculate equations.

[Throg]

Originally posted by RussDill
I think what he was refering to, is that when we work out problems, we don't use the approximation of Pi, we use the symbol for pi, or the infinite series, and express our answer either in terms of pi, or as whole numbers, if Pi drops out. Whereas computers, take the approximation of Pi, and come out with an approximate answer.

This is of course, only one of the many ways computers can calculate equations.

doh! Thanks for clearing that up.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by hammegk
I'd agree that all of 'what-is' is patterned energy. Now if we could just correctly define the essence of "energy", huh? God. And that smacks of dualism!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Iacchus
... that smacks of dualism!
Not for an objective idealist ..... :)