Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #110]

We know that humans are conscious beings (as are many other animals), while plants are not ... and, not coincidently, plants don't have brains.

Humans are unique and can only honestly be categorised in relation to that.
See;
viewtopic.php?p=1081364#p1081364

As to plants, these are well known {in our observation of them} to convey awareness . Awareness is related to consciousness/being conscious, therefore we cannot claim to know that plants are not conscious. We can and should remain Agnostic about that, rather than make/support unsubstantiated claims.

Which makes the fact that plants do not have brains [at least how humans currently understand brains to be] that much more interesting, as it may point to the possibility that consciousness is not emergent of [current understanding] of brains.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #109]

You are an electronics engineer so should appreciate better than most, what I'm talking about here.

Thanks for the new title, but I'm a spectroscopist by trade although I have learned quite a bit of electronics over the years out of a need to do so.

Take a transistor, say a simple FET or op-amp. Well the characteristic curves for that are what they are, you apply a gate voltage and you get a resulting drain/source current, there are as you know better than I perhaps, documented characteristic curves for this.

I do know how MOSFETs and bipolar junction transistors work (and opamps which are built from transistors). A crude analogy to my point that the whole can be far more capable and and with new functions compared to its parts would in fact be an opamp. The individual transistors and other components that make up an opamp cannot individually carry out the basic function of an opamp (ie. force the output to whatever voltage is necessary to make the voltages at the + and - inputs equal), but the complete opamp can perform this function (or rail trying). The opamp can perform a function that its constituent components cannot.

If we build a circuit out of ten, a hundred or a million of them, then the output will be a computable function of the input, the system does not suddenly acquire some magic ability to decide for itself what the output will be irrespective of the input.

Right, but that's not analogous to consciousness being an emergent property of a working brain. A typical human brain contains something like 90 billion neurons and 10-50 times that many glial cells:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1201895109

And neurons are not simple 2-state transistors (a single synapse may act more like that):

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/170 ... e-learning

This massively parallel architecture and the ability of neurons to change the "strength" of intreactions based on repetition of signals make the brain a far more capable "computer" than anything we've ever built yet as a machine. We don't understand it well enough to put boundaries on its capabilities and say that something like consciousness is not possible as an emergent property. We know that humans are conscious beings (as are many other animals), while plants are not ... and, not coincidently, plants don't have brains. The human brain is not deterministic ... yet anyway.

Oh I understand the reasoning, it's common and well established, has been actually since the dawn of the machine age. The thinking is that because human brains contain a huge number of components and humans possess consciousness and apparent free will, then these are therefore "emergent" properties (or bulk properties) of the brain, but it is just a hypothesis based on a presumed correlation between complexity and capability.

The fact is though that if this is true then we do not have nor can ever have free will, because biological cells and neurons are deterministic, implement computable functions and by definition free will is incompatible with determinism. Non determinism cannot "emerge" from determinism. Unpredictability can emerge but that is a very different thing altogether as I said, a dice is unpredictable but does not have free will, the weather is unpredictable but does not have free will.

If you insist that free will can exist then we must consider the possibility that any unpredictable system might actually possess free will, and therefore the weather might choose what it does, but claiming the weather is a choice is no different to the scoffed at claims of the primitive tribes and the "Gods of the sky".

The argument is unwinnable, if free will (non-determinism) does emerge then it cannot be attributable to physical complexity alone because the components are deterministic. If the free will does not exist (only unpredictability) then there can be no right or wrong because these terms are meaningless without free will, a person cannot choose what to only what the laws of the system dictate what it should do.

So therefore in a purely scientific model of the universe free will does not exist, nature is deterministic and the actions of people can be classified as "good" or "bad" but these actions are inevitable consequences of determinism not choice.

If I let go of a ball it cannot choose to disobey physical law. If I apply a voltage to the gate of an FET it cannot choose to disobey physical law, if I switch on my radio it cannot choose to not act as a radio, to not obey the laws of physics.

For your argument (and this is not just your argument, a great many scientific people believe it) to have validity you'd need to prove that non-determinism exists (as opposed to unpredictability) but one cannot do that scientifically because science is based on cause -> effect - laws.

You cannot get a deterministic model - however complex - and generate non-determinism. To claim some effect is not due to cause, not due to laws, is to cease being scientific - how can one prove that some event has absolutely no cause? we can suspect it, suggest it but never scientifically establish it, all we can establish is that we do not yet know the relationship between the cause and the effect OR there is something else, something alien to us, that exists in the universe that constitutes free will - the Bible does speak of "spirit" so this might be what that means.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #110]

We know that humans are conscious beings (as are many other animals), while plants are not ... and, not coincidently, plants don't have brains.

Humans are unique and can only honestly be categorised in relation to that.
See;
viewtopic.php?p=1081364#p1081364

As to plants, these are well known {in our observation of them} to convey awareness . Awareness is related to consciousness/being conscious, therefore we cannot claim to know that plants are not conscious. We can and should remain Agnostic about that, rather than make/support unsubstantiated claims.

Which makes the fact that plants do not have brains [at least how humans currently understand brains to be] that much more interesting, as it may point to the possibility that consciousness is not emergent of [current understanding] of brains.

On the plants there, I can see where the heat of the sun initiates contractions and expansions, such that sunflower seeds're delicious.

More broadly, I'm reminded of how chemicals get released, such that some plants "communicate". I think though, here, "communication", like "genetic information" is best understood as useful terms.

Anticipating rebuttal, I do recognize our own human communication, vocal, can be described in relation to chemical processi... I'd argue it's the vocalizing that sets our communication apart.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #112]

The argument is unwinnable, if free will (non-determinism) does emerge then it cannot be attributable to physical complexity alone because the components are deterministic. If the free will does not exist (only unpredictability) then there can be no right or wrong because these terms are meaningless without free will, a person cannot choose what to only what the laws of the system dictate what it should do.

So therefore in a purely scientific model of the universe free will does not exist, nature is deterministic and the actions of people can be classified as "good" or "bad" but these actions are inevitable consequences of determinism not choice.

If I let go of a ball it cannot choose to disobey physical law. If I apply a voltage to the gate of an FET it cannot choose to disobey physical law, if I switch on my radio it cannot choose to not act as a radio, to not obey the laws of physics.

For your argument (and this is not just your argument, a great many scientific people believe it) to have validity you'd need to prove that non-determinism exists (as opposed to unpredictability) but one cannot do that scientifically because science is based on cause -> effect - laws.

You cannot get a deterministic model - however complex - and generate non-determinism. To claim some effect is not due to cause, not due to laws, is to cease being scientific - how can one prove that some event has absolutely no cause? we can suspect it, suggest it but never scientifically establish it, all we can establish is that we do not yet know the relationship between the cause and the effect OR there is something else, something alien to us, that exists in the universe that constitutes free will - the Bible does speak of "spirit" so this might be what that means.

The argument is not unwinnable. All of the above can be countered with the simple idea that the neurons in the brain interacting with other brain matter (electrical signals, chemical signals, memory elements, etc.) is capable of creating consciousness, thoughts, etc. Nothing you've said, no matter how many times you repeat it or reword it, disproves this simple and rational idea.

There's no reason to believe that the atoms and molecules that make up a working brain cannot produce something like consciousness. You're argument that this is impossible, because a non-deterministic collection of things cannot produce something that is determinstic is simply wrong, and bad logic. You're just declaring it to be so and expecting everyone to buy it.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #112]

The argument is unwinnable, if free will (non-determinism) does emerge then it cannot be attributable to physical complexity alone because the components are deterministic. If the free will does not exist (only unpredictability) then there can be no right or wrong because these terms are meaningless without free will, a person cannot choose what to only what the laws of the system dictate what it should do.

So therefore in a purely scientific model of the universe free will does not exist, nature is deterministic and the actions of people can be classified as "good" or "bad" but these actions are inevitable consequences of determinism not choice.

If I let go of a ball it cannot choose to disobey physical law. If I apply a voltage to the gate of an FET it cannot choose to disobey physical law, if I switch on my radio it cannot choose to not act as a radio, to not obey the laws of physics.

For your argument (and this is not just your argument, a great many scientific people believe it) to have validity you'd need to prove that non-determinism exists (as opposed to unpredictability) but one cannot do that scientifically because science is based on cause -> effect - laws.

You cannot get a deterministic model - however complex - and generate non-determinism. To claim some effect is not due to cause, not due to laws, is to cease being scientific - how can one prove that some event has absolutely no cause? we can suspect it, suggest it but never scientifically establish it, all we can establish is that we do not yet know the relationship between the cause and the effect OR there is something else, something alien to us, that exists in the universe that constitutes free will - the Bible does speak of "spirit" so this might be what that means.

The argument is not unwinnable. All of the above can be countered with the simple idea that the neurons in the brain interacting with other brain matter (electrical signals, chemical signals, memory elements, etc.) is capable of creating consciousness, thoughts, etc. Nothing you've said, no matter how many times you repeat it or reword it, disproves this simple and rational idea.

There's no reason to believe that the atoms and molecules that make up a working brain cannot produce something like consciousness. You're argument that this is impossible, because a non-deterministic collection of things cannot produce something that is determinstic is simply wrong, and bad logic. You're just declaring it to be so and expecting everyone to buy it.

Can you conceive of being conscious yet having an absence of free will? If the presence of free will does is not necessary for consciousness then consciousness is just some label we arbitrarily attach to something, I mean in what way could a conscious system differ from an unconscious one if both systems are wholly subject to determinism? to laws of nature?

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #110]

We know that humans are conscious beings (as are many other animals), while plants are not ... and, not coincidently, plants don't have brains.

Humans are unique and can only honestly be categorised in relation to that.
See;
viewtopic.php?p=1081364#p1081364

As to plants, these are well known {in our observation of them} to convey awareness . Awareness is related to consciousness/being conscious, therefore we cannot claim to know that plants are not conscious. We can and should remain Agnostic about that, rather than make/support unsubstantiated claims.

Which makes the fact that plants do not have brains [at least how humans currently understand brains to be] that much more interesting, as it may point to the possibility that consciousness is not emergent of [current understanding] of brains.

On the plants there, I can see where the heat of the sun initiates contractions and expansions, such that sunflower seeds're delicious.

Are you saying the sun is the cause of this, not the plants?

More broadly, I'm reminded of how chemicals get released, such that some plants "communicate". I think though, here, "communication", like "genetic information" is best understood as useful terms.

Are terms useful if they do not convey reality as precisely as possible?

Anticipating rebuttal, I do recognize our own human communication, vocal, can be described in relation to chemical processi... I'd argue it's the vocalizing that sets our communication apart.

Whether the communication is chemical or sound or some other thing, what is being communicated is only useful if its message is received and understood.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #115]

Can you conceive of being conscious yet having an absence of free will? If the presence of free will does is not necessary for consciousness then consciousness is just some label we arbitrarily attach to something, I mean in what way could a conscious system differ from an unconscious one if both systems are wholly subject to determinism? to laws of nature?

Free will is the ability to make decisions as one sees fit and take action on those decisions (control over one's actions). To make decisions requires consciousness, so I can't conceive of the ability to have free will without consciousness (or the ability to possess consciousness without a brain), but you asked about the reverse. I don't think free will is necessary for consciousness, but consciousness is necessary for free well.

A conscious system is different from an unconscious one in that the conscious system can make decisions, and the ability to make decisions is a property of a functioning brain. I'm sticking with my story that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, it does not exist without a brain, and is (as you put it above), is just a label we have chosen to apply to the property of having awareness. It is a manifestation of a working brain, despite the brain being made of deterministic components at the molecular level.

I don't buy the claim that you've been making that this is impossible because (a) we do know that brains are made of individual molecules and (b) we do know that humans possess consciousness. We may not be able (yet) to explain every mechanism for every brain function at a molecular level, but we also can't rule out that there is a purely materialistic explanation for every function, including consciousness. A "spirit" or other similar explanation is pure conjecture and belongs more in the realm of philisophy.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #111]

As to plants, these are well known {in our observation of them} to convey awareness . Awareness is related to consciousness/being conscious, therefore we cannot claim to know that plants are not conscious. We can and should remain Agnostic about that, rather than make/support unsubstantiated claims.

Got any examples of plants exhibiting awareness? Not just "following the sun" during the day which we know has nothing to do with the plant "thinking" (eg. for sunflowers ... but other plants do this as well):

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffa ... owers-move

I can't be agnostic about plants having consciousness because I'm convinced that consciousness requires a brain, and plants don't have brains. But if there is bona-fide science to show that plants can possess consciousness I'm all ears. I've seen articles making such claims, but have yet to see any such claims survive scrutiny. Plants have evolved for hundreds of millions of years and have developed an astonishingly wide range of forms and growth/reproduction methods, but consciousness as far as I'm aware has never been demonstated to exist in plants.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #118]

Got any examples of plants exhibiting awareness? Not just "following the sun" during the day which we know has nothing to do with the plant "thinking" (eg. for sunflowers ... but other plants do this as well):
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffa ... owers-move

From the link;

Back in 2016, a study was published which revealed how sunflowers’ own biological clock, ability to detect light, and the flower’s genes allow the stems to bend with the arc of the sun.

The study detailed how sunflowers have their own 24-hour circadian rhythm, or internal clock. Sleeping at night and being awake during the day is an example of that for people, and following the sun is the circadian rhythm of young sunflowers.

Unlike humans though, sunflowers don’t have muscles, so how are they turning in the first place to follow the sun on cue? That answer comes down to their stems.

The information shows that awareness is happening. "Thinking" isn't an expression I used - "Awareness" was the expression I used. The word "thinking" lends itself more to placing human attributes onto other things. Plants exhibit awareness but the awareness does not imply human-type thinking is going on.

I can't be agnostic about plants having consciousness because I'm convinced that consciousness requires a brain, and plants don't have brains.

You are convinced that everything displaying awareness are only things with brains? The evidence suggests things without brains also have awareness and awareness implies consciousness - which in turn implies that brains are not the things which produce consciousness.

But if there is bona-fide science to show that plants can possess consciousness I'm all ears.

As long as brains are also shown, otherwise ears close down.

Plants have evolved for hundreds of millions of years and have developed an astonishingly wide range of forms and growth/reproduction methods, but consciousness as far as I'm aware has never been demonstated to exist in plants.

This has to be because you are only acknowledging the belief in consciousness and awareness as being emergent of brains.
Is it also true that by 'brains' you mean 'things which appear similar to human brains?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #115]

Can you conceive of being conscious yet having an absence of free will? If the presence of free will does is not necessary for consciousness then consciousness is just some label we arbitrarily attach to something, I mean in what way could a conscious system differ from an unconscious one if both systems are wholly subject to determinism? to laws of nature?

Free will is the ability to make decisions as one sees fit and take action on those decisions (control over one's actions). To make decisions requires consciousness, so I can't conceive of the ability to have free will without consciousness (or the ability to possess consciousness without a brain), but you asked about the reverse. I don't think free will is necessary for consciousness, but consciousness is necessary for free well.

A conscious system is different from an unconscious one in that the conscious system can make decisions, and the ability to make decisions is a property of a functioning brain. I'm sticking with my story that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, it does not exist without a brain, and is (as you put it above), is just a label we have chosen to apply to the property of having awareness. It is a manifestation of a working brain, despite the brain being made of deterministic components at the molecular level.

I don't buy the claim that you've been making that this is impossible because (a) we do know that brains are made of individual molecules and (b) we do know that humans possess consciousness. We may not be able (yet) to explain every mechanism for every brain function at a molecular level, but we also can't rule out that there is a purely materialistic explanation for every function, including consciousness. A "spirit" or other similar explanation is pure conjecture and belongs more in the realm of philisophy.

Free will necessitates non-determinism else any decision made is only an apparent "decision" and nothing more than an inevitable outcome due to the laws of nature.

If I "decide" to go to the store, it is an illusion, I was destined all along to go to the store and have no control, in fact there can be no "I" if we are deterministic, it has no meaning.

There is no scientific means of "making decisions" because nature shows there are no such things as decisions only laws, causes and effects. If I let go of a ball does it "decide" to fall?

Even computers do not make decisions, this is another myth, they mindlessly follow rules, and never ever ever deviate from those rules. Everything a computer does is an unavoidable and inevitable result of its history and current events.

You argue:

I'm sticking with my story that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.

But I don't see how that can be true. It literally means that a system can behave against the laws of nature, that its actions are not governed by the laws of nature. Yet all the parts that comprise a brain are ultimately no more than atoms and molecules and to argue that atoms and molecules in a sufficiently large agglomeration can act in a way that is not in accord with the scientific laws governing atoms and molecules is to argue magic surely?