Answering Atheist Questions About Consciouisness

Image result for metacrock' blog mind



This is in reference to BK's Nov 9 (2017) thread on Dennette, and especially the comment section affixed thereto.  Anonymous (aka "Pixie") has several questions which did not get answered,BK intimated that he feels that answering thee questions would be a waste of his time, so I will give my opinions instead. Giving my opinion i something I do rather well.
Anonymous (aka Pixie) said...



You have no actual theory of what consciousness really is, just a dogmatic belief in the soul, and that consciousness must somehow be there. So of course you want to avoid the mire of a myriad questions because you have no clue.
We don't have to have an actual theory to understand that consciousnesses is not remediable to brain chemistry. I think you know that just expressing the opinion as you have is not a scientific theory, You are not constructing a scientific theory by telling us that you accept the atheist preachment of reductionist ideology and you reduce consistences to brain chemistry. But then he can't resist spouting the orthodoxy of the creed to show that he;s "with it:"
Pix says: "Personally I think consciousness is an emergent feature of the brain. This is a coherent theory, and so I can offer answers to that myriad of questions." Jut saying that is a far cry from discussing a theory. First of all it don't tell us anything. It's designed to counter beliefs such as the soul but it's so veg and general I can actually agree with it. I tend to  to support a theory of of consciousness as an emergent property but that does not mean it's not also a vehicle for surviving death as well, So when brain structure reaches a level of complexity it produce consciousnesses and creatures created in the image of God obtain to a form of consciousness that is capable of eternal existence, 


Secondly, emergence contradicts reductionism. Emergence is a theory of holism which is counter to redaction,[2] "We might roughly characterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them."[3] George Henry Lewes introduced it in  Problems of Life and Mind, (1875). It's really become something of a fad then.[4] "Emergent laws are fundamental; they are irreducible to laws characterizing properties at lower levels of complexity, even given ideal information as to boundary conditions. Since emergent features have not only same-level effects, but also effects in lower levels, some speak of the view's commitment to “downward causation” (a phrase originating in Campbell 1974). "[5] That's kind of a contradiction in terns to say that consciousness is reducible to brain chemistry then saying it is irreducible.
Thirdly there is no standardized theory. Atheist propaganda wants to make as through it's just a scientific fact that we are nothing more than sacks of chemicals with electricity and everything we feel and know can  be reduced to just that. Yet is by no mean a scientific fact, Some major researchers are very skeptical of the methodology that yields such conclusions. This section is taken from my essay "Consciousness is not reducible to Brain Function,":I'm quoting myself but I preserve the original footnotes:[6]
Raymond Tallis was a professor of Geriatric medicine at University of Manchester, and researcher, who retired in 2006 to devote himself to philosophy and writing. Tallis denounces what he calls “neurohype,” “the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in areas outside those in which it has any kind of explanatory power….”[7] 

The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic.[8] 

Specifically Tallis has refernce to experiments where the brain is scanned while the subject does some activity and the differences are attributed to some structure in that part of the brain. Tallis is highly skeptical of this method. 

Why is this fallacious? First, when it is stated that a particular part of the brain lights up in response to a particular stimulus, this is not the whole story. Much more of the brain is already active or lit up; all that can be observed is the additional activity associated with the stimulus. Minor changes noted diffusely are also overlooked. Secondly, the additional activity can be identified only by a process of averaging the results of subtractions after the stimulus has been given repeatedly: variations in the response to successive stimuli are ironed out. Finally, and most importantly, the experiments look at the response to very simple stimuli – for example, a picture of the face of a loved one compared with that of the face of one who is not loved. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere (for the benefit of Martians), romantic love is not like a response to a stimulus. It is not even a single enduring state, like being cold. It encompasses many things, including not feeling in love at that moment; hunger, indifference, delight; wanting to be kind, wanting to impress; worrying over the logistics of meetings; lust, awe, surprise; imagining conversations, events; speculating what the loved one is doing when one is not there; and so on. (The most sophisticated neural imaging, by the way, cannot even distinguish between physical pain and the pain of social rejection: they seem to “light up” the same areas!)[9] 
Pix:
So is it localised to the brain, or a specific part of the brain, or spread out across the cosmos? Local to the brain
Meta: 

Of course this depends upon which theory you advocate. It's hard to make pronouncements about something when we don't know what it is. It's no good trying to suggest that this mean there is no consciousness. We went through the same nonsense yesterday with Skepie about sub atomic particles, They are real but we don't now what they really are. It's very possible. Still let's take y theory of emergence for an example,

God is universal mind. This means there is a reality that underlies what we call the physical world: that is the mind we call God. I would say :the mind of God: but Since he doesn't have a body  God is is mind itself, We are made in the image of God so we have little minds that are generated by organic complexity but that's because we are physical being,we are created to inhabit physical space, We are not extensions of God but we are made in his image and thus we reflect the mind aspect of being. 


God, not being a physical organism does not require a body or a brain and is not produced by complexity. God is universal eternal mind and thus reality is a form of consciousness. So consciousness is not localized in physical place. We can hook up with universal mind in a manner we call "prayer" and it also means God can experience our experiences (which is to say  God knows our hearts). Our physical centers that do brain/mind interface are like portal and link the mind to infinite reality, God. There' a infinite world in the mental dimension.

Pix:

How does it interact with the brain? It is a product of the brain

Meta: 
Of course we don't really know but I would  imagine it would be analogous to the way a light interact with the bulb, or also an analogy much the way hardware on a computer interacts with software,
Pix:
How is it affected by hormones or alcohol? As it is a product of the brain, it is directly affected by chemicals in the blood ?
Meta: 

If the software computer analogy holds organic hardware of brain chemistry function in a matter analogous to an operating system.When the system is impaired acces is made inefficient, the effect would appear much like that of inebriation.


Pix:
Why do we forget things? Physical connections in the brain deteriorate over time. 
Meta: 
If the hardware breaks down can't access the software.



Pix:
When does it enter the body? The brain grows during the later stages of pregnancy, and degrees of consciousness emerge over time, 
Meta: 
ok maybe so what? I know you thin that's such terribly cleaver way of proving there can't be a consciousness. But it doesn't prove anything,  There are segments to consciousness we know consciousness can be altered,so it;s perfectly possible that it does grow and develop, It doesn't have to enter the body especial if it is emergent, then it could be like IQ. Would you ask when IQ" enters your body?

Pix:
Does it grow as we get older? It develops during childhood

Meta: 

Does Intelligence grow? I think that;s answered by the previous

Pix:

Do chimps have it? To a limited degree; they have complex brains but not as complex as ours
Meta:

So why are you asking?

Pix:
How about cats or slugs? Cats might, their brains are rather simpler, but slugs brains are too primitive


Meta:

 According to my universal mind theory consciousness is ground up, It is a function of complexity of the hardware that access it. So plants have very little primitive bit and bugs haven more and dogs have more then Trumpies then apes then man, ;-)


Pix:
Or computers? No, but potentially they could
Meta:
  I doubt that computers will need their souks saved they wont have to know Jesus to be saved, just hit the right button to save, Hahahaahm I just made a computer joke that;s as old as Dos.





[1] comment section
[2] Timothy O'Connor, and Hong Yu Wong, , "Emergent Properties", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/properties-emergent
(accessed, 11/19/17)

[3]  Ibid
[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.
[6] Joseph Hinman "Consciousness is not reducible to Brain Function, (part 1)" Metacrock's Blog (Sep. 16, 2013)) 
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2013/09/mind-is-not-reduceable-to-brain-function.html
(accessed, 11/19/17)
[7] Raymond Tallis New Haumanist.org.uk Ideas for Godless People (blog—online researche) volume 124 Issue 6 (Nov/Dec 2009) URL: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrash visited 5/9/12 

[8] ibid 

[9] ibid








Comments

Anonymous said…
Can I ask you to clarify this:

JH: Secondly, emergence contradicts reductionism. Emergence is a theory of holism which is counter to redaction

Emergence (in this context) claims consciousness arises purely within the brain, there is nothing else involved. If consciousness is strongly emergent is it reducible to brain chemistry? I have been assuming yes, but from this it sound like you would say no. But I think the difference here is how we understand "reducible".

I understood you to be claiming there was a non-material aspect to consciousness. Thus consciousness cannot be reduced to brain chemistry because there is some other component that is involved (whether that is a universal consciousness a soul or whatever). From that, I took reducible to include strong emergence. However, that is contradicted by what you have stated here, so it would be useful if you could clarify.

You also say emergence is a theory of holism. What does that mean? At most, emergent consciousness uses the whole of the brain, which to me seems pretty localised. That is not holism as I understand the word. More generally, other examples of emergence are not holistic. For instance the wetness of water and the second law of thermodynamics do not involve holism. So in what sense is emergence holistic?

Pix
Anonymous said…
JH: God, not being a physical organism does not require a body or a brain and is not produced by complexity. God is universal eternal mind and thus reality is a form of consciousness. So consciousness is not localized in physical place. We can hook up with universal mind in a manner we call "prayer" and it also means God can experience our experiences (which is to say God knows our hearts). Our physical centers that do brain/mind interface are like portal and link the mind to infinite reality, God. There' a infinite world in the mental dimension.

If our brains - which are just organic chemicals - can link to God, then presumably other material devices can do so too. If you are right, a brain is a form of God detector, and it should be possible to build a mechanical device able to do that too. I would be interested to hear of work going on in that area.

JH: Of course we don't really know but I would imagine it would be analogous to the way a light interact with the bulb, or also an analogy much the way hardware on a computer interacts with software,

Not sure what you mean by how a light interacts with a bulb.

It is worth pointing out that software supervenes on hardware; it exists very much in the material world, with different parts of the process in different physical locations (memory, IO, CPU, GPU). You cannot have software in the absence of hardware; if the hardware is destroyed, the software disappears with it. What would be useful to know is how your theory is different to the reducible theory. For example, you could draw an analogy to running software in the cloud; in that case the software would still exist when the hardware dies.

Then we can discuss whether there is one connection from the hardware to the cloud or many. For example, you could build a computer in which each component has its own connection to the cloud, so the software in the cloud has a connection to the harddrive, and another connection to the CPU and another connection to the RAM. Or is there a single point of connection, i.e., the network card?

JH: If the hardware breaks down can't access the software.

Okay, so memory is stored in the organic chemistry of the brain, right?

JH: ok maybe so what? I know you thin that's such terribly cleaver way of proving there can't be a consciousness. But it doesn't prove anything, There are segments to consciousness we know consciousness can be altered,so it;s perfectly possible that it does grow and develop, It doesn't have to enter the body especial if it is emergent, then it could be like IQ. Would you ask when IQ" enters your body?

Actually I think there is consciousness.

What you are proposing is a system that presumably starts off without a connection to the god-mind as a fertilised egg, given it has no brain, but at some point suddenly there is a connection. When does that happen? Can it happen with animals, or computers? Why or why not?

Emergence by its nature is a gradual thing. There is not a specific number of water molecules you need before wetness suddenly appears, rather it is approached by degrees.

JH: According to my universal mind theory consciousness is ground up, It is a function of complexity of the hardware that access it. So plants have very little primitive bit and bugs haven more and dogs have more then Trumpies then apes then man, ;-)

Okay, so my previous comment may well be moot; you are saying every has a connection. But that would include computers, which are certainly more complex than plants.

JH: I doubt that computers will need their souks saved they wont have to know Jesus to be saved,

Do plants need their souls to be saved? Are you saying we would need to build a cursed computer to produce true AI? I appreciate you are not literally saying that, but is it a necessary consequence of your position? We need to build a computer that needs to be saved so it gets granted a consciousness by God.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
my definition of holism"


Often summarized as “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” holism states that the relation of the parts to the whole is such that the individual parts do not explain the state of the whole. This includes aspects of emergent properties that can’t be reduced to the parts that produced them. This latter formulation, non-separability, is the cousin of holism: it’s the idea that the state of the parts does not explain the state of the whole.i Holism as a methodological thesis can best be understood as the idea that “the best way to study the behavior of a complex system is to treat it as a whole.”ii Holism may also be a metaphysical thesis. In that sense it’s about the relation of the whole to laws that govern it, and the independence of the law from the individual parts.

Healey, Richard, "Holism and Nonseparability in Physics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/physics-holism/, visited 4/25/2012


Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: God, not being a physical organism does not require a body or a brain and is not produced by complexity. God is universal eternal mind and thus reality is a form of consciousness. So consciousness is not localized in physical place. We can hook up with universal mind in a manner we call "prayer" and it also means God can experience our experiences (which is to say God knows our hearts). Our physical centers that do brain/mind interface are like portal and link the mind to infinite reality, God. There' a infinite world in the mental dimension.

If our brains - which are just organic chemicals - can link to God, then presumably other material devices can do so too. If you are right, a brain is a form of God detector, and it should be possible to build a mechanical device able to do that too. I would be interested to hear of work going on in that area.

God is all around (omnipresent) but it recognizing it is the problem. Our brain don't link to God. We have the initiated property of mind that includes spirit. Spirit is a form of mind we have that,I am not sure others things have it.

JH: Of course we don't really know but I would imagine it would be analogous to the way a light interact with the bulb, or also an analogy much the way hardware on a computer interacts with software,

Not sure what you mean by how a light interacts with a bulb.

I think you do, light is produced by electricity in the filament,


It is worth pointing out that software supervenes on hardware; it exists very much in the material world, with different parts of the process in different physical locations (memory, IO, CPU, GPU).


It was also be wort pointing out that analogues are not proof they only illustrate concepts and they usually break down at some point they never fit perfectly--there can also be supervention theories of consciousness,

You cannot have software in the absence of hardware;

what did I say about boogieman being limited?


if the hardware is destroyed, the software disappears with it. What would be useful to know is how your theory is different to the reducible theory. For example, you could draw an analogy to running software in the cloud; in that case the software would still exist when the hardware dies.

so?


Joe Hinman said…
Then we can discuss whether there is one connection from the hardware to the cloud or many. For example, you could build a computer in which each component has its own connection to the cloud, so the software in the cloud has a connection to the harddrive, and another connection to the CPU and another connection to the RAM. Or is there a single point of connection, i.e., the network card?

at this point you are off topic,if you think this in some way disproves my ideas about consciousness you are going to have to spell out how does,

JH: If the hardware breaks down can't access the software.

Okay, so memory is stored in the organic chemistry of the brain, right?

that doesn't follow. they connected memory to parts of the brain so i suppose it does, that doesn't prove there aen't mental aspects


JH: ok maybe so what? I know you thin that's such terribly cleaver way of proving there can't be a consciousness. But it doesn't prove anything, There are segments to consciousness we know consciousness can be altered,so it;s perfectly possible that it does grow and develop, It doesn't have to enter the body especial if it is emergent, then it could be like IQ. Would you ask when IQ" enters your body?

Actually I think there is consciousness.

ok that's good



What you are proposing is a system that presumably starts off without a connection to the god-mind as a fertilised egg, given it has no brain, but at some point suddenly there is a connection. When does that happen? Can it happen with animals, or computers? Why or why not?

you are assuage that brain is ht only things that thinks,my ideas says that mind is what thinks and brain is just the means of helping it along, so without mind brain would be empty of ideas,


Emergence by its nature is a gradual thing. There is not a specific number of water molecules you need before wetness suddenly appears, rather it is approached by degrees.

I bet there is we just know what it is,we consciousness is not just on or off,it has levels.


JH: According to my universal mind theory consciousness is ground up, It is a function of complexity of the hardware that access it. So plants have very little primitive bit and bugs haven more and dogs have more then Trumpies then apes then man, ;-)

Okay, so my previous comment may well be moot; you are saying every has a connection. But that would include computers, which are certainly more complex than plants.

not necessarily in the right way. they might lacks the quality of spirit

JH: I doubt that computers will need their souks saved they wont have to know Jesus to be saved,

Do plants need their souls to be saved?

no

Are you saying we would need to build a cursed computer to produce true AI?

I doubt that AI is really possible, even so that wouldn't make it cursed it would just mean it's not a free moral agent so it's not a candidate for salvation,

I appreciate you are not literally saying that, but is it a necessary consequence of your position? We need to build a computer that needs to be saved so it gets granted a consciousness by God.
Joe Hinman said…
I appreciate you are not literally saying that, but is it a necessary consequence of your position? We need to build a computer that needs to be saved so it gets granted a consciousness by God.


sub human species don't need salvation because they are not made in the image of God they are not free moral agents so they don't sin so they don't need saving,
Anonymous said…
JH: my definition of holism

The "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" thing makes sense. I was thinking of holism as being everything connected, which is what confused me.

JH: God is all around (omnipresent) but it recognizing it is the problem. Our brain don't link to God. We have the initiated property of mind that includes spirit. Spirit is a form of mind we have that,I am not sure others things have it.

So then we should be able to detect spirit, because our brains, which are just organic chemicals, are able to do so.

JH: I think you do, light is produced by electricity in the filament,

No, really I do not, and what you say here does not help. When you said "analogous to the way a light interact with the bulb", the way they interact is the bulb emits light. Are you saying the brain emits mind? I really do not know.

JH: It was also be wort pointing out that analogues are not proof they only illustrate concepts and they usually break down at some point they never fit perfectly--there can also be supervention theories of consciousness,

Sure, but the point of an analogy is to make an explanation clearer. It would be great if you could devise an analogy that makes clear how the god-mind and brain interact that highlights the difference between that and an emergence model.

JH: at this point you are off topic,if you think this in some way disproves my ideas about consciousness you are going to have to spell out how does,

It was a suggestion of what you might be proposing.

There is a problem here that you suck at explaining. I say this because your recent posts have said "Our brain don't link to God. We have the initiated property of mind that includes spirit. Spirit is a form of mind we have that". It is clear that the spirit is a vital part of your theory, and yet it does not get mentioned in your blog post!

Where is spirit in your computer or light bulb analogy? I have literally no idea, and I am wondering if you do either.

Somehow I have to piece together what you really believe from hints scattered about your blog posts on the topic and numerous comments. Is the computer running software in the cloud a useful analogy? I really do not know, but think about it; it might be.

JH: that doesn't follow. they connected memory to parts of the brain so i suppose it does, that doesn't prove there aen't mental aspects

I re-read what you posted and realise I had misunderstood. So back to the blog post:

Pix: Why do we forget things? Physical connections in the brain deteriorate over time.

Meta: If the hardware breaks down can't access the software.

Are you saying the physical brain is used to access the memory in the god-mind? That is, if I think about what I ate for dinner yesterday, the desire to know is in my consciousness in the god-mind, and that communicates with one part of my brain, which then sends the signal to another part of my brain, and that then accesses the memory back in the god-mind?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Emergence (in this context) claims consciousness arises purely within the brain, there is nothing else involved. If consciousness is strongly emergent is it reducible to brain chemistry? I have been assuming yes, but from this it sound like you would say no. But I think the difference here is how we understand "reducible".

we don't have to assume emergence is purely naturalistic.. God can use it

I understood you to be claiming there was a non-material aspect to consciousness. Thus consciousness cannot be reduced to brain chemistry because there is some other component that is involved (whether that is a universal consciousness a soul or whatever). From that, I took reducible to include strong emergence. However, that is contradicted by what you have stated here, so it would be useful if you could clarify.

If we assume God created the universe then he had to create emergence too


You also say emergence is a theory of holism. What does that mean? At most, emergent consciousness uses the whole of the brain, which to me seems pretty localised.

I posted my definition of emergence, it means whole is greater than the sum of it's parts,

That is not holism as I understand the word. More generally, other examples of emergence are not holistic. For instance the wetness of water and the second law of thermodynamics do not involve holism. So in what sense is emergence holistic?

I doubt that you know the history, history of ideas is my field its not yours,
Anonymous said…
JH: we don't have to assume emergence is purely naturalistic.. God can use it

So really it is not a very useful term in this context; it serves only to muddy the waters, confusing the difference between our positions.

What we are arguing about is a materialist theory, where mind supervenes on the physical, versus a non-materialist theory which requires some other component (i.e., the spirit linked to the god-mind).

Either or both could invoke emergence.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
I doubt that you know the history, history of ideas is my field its not yours

- Oh brother. Here we go again. Don't dare to question my superior knowledge, because unlike you commoners, I have spent many years in a PhD program, and that makes me superior. (And maybe if I try hard enough, they'll give me my degree.) I can make any claim about science I please, as long as I link it to "history of ideas", because I took a course in that, and you can have nothing to say about it. Don't try to tell me that emergence isn't necessarily holistic, because I'm the know-it-all expert.
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
I doubt that you know the history, history of ideas is my field its not yours

- Oh brother. Here we go again. Don't dare to question my superior knowledge, because unlike you commoners, I have spent many years in a PhD program, and that makes me superior.

We all have our specialties. I don't lecture Pix on consistory because he is a chemist and I know nothing about it,

(And maybe if I try hard enough, they'll give me my degree.)

you are making a personal attach do it again and you are banned.

I can make any claim about science I please, as long as I link it to "history of ideas", because I took a course in that, and you can have nothing to say about it. Don't try to tell me that emergence isn't necessarily holistic, because I'm the know-it-all expert.

I didn't take a course in it I studied as a doctoral candidate for several years. I know you you can only feel good about yourself except by putting others down,but I have accomplished more than you have, that' a pathetic game, you just mark yourself as pathetic by needing to play it,

I did not attack Pixie, you do this one more time and you are banned,
Joe Hinman said…
here is my pot on atheistwatch showing that some atheists are atheists because they have low elf esteem ,they need to mock and ridicule and to see themselves superiority to religious people because they hate themselves.

rejection of Christiantiy andlow self esteem
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: we don't have to assume emergence is purely naturalistic.. God can use it

So really it is not a very useful term in this context; it serves only to muddy the waters, confusing the difference between our positions.

you mean emergence? of course it's useful, it marks a distinct difference from others kinds of theories. You speak of God in science, that's for ethology, you don't think about the relationship to God in accessing emergence or gradualism, or superintendence.

What we are arguing about is a materialist theory, where mind supervenes on the physical, versus a non-materialist theory which requires some other component (i.e., the spirit linked to the god-mind).

that' only if we are having a discussion between theology and science,I was ginning theological view but in terms of speaking scientifically we can just omit the God part and talk about it as though it's all secular, that's if you want to keep it scientific.

Either or both could invoke emergence.

emergence means there is no graduate transitional evolution marking the drift toward a given tendency. There's just a sudden appearance of the trait. That can come with to without subservience, that's a different issue.

With the property duelist position mind i non physical property supervenes upon the physical. Meaning mind is dependency upon brain but is not reducible to it. it's only muddy if you can't follow a line of reasoning.

one other thing pix I really did mean to attack you that crack that you don't know history of ideas,I was just making a little mock bravado plugging my discipline for humor, Hope you did not feel insulted,

im-skeptical said…
I didn't take a course in it I studied as a doctoral candidate for several years. I know you you can only feel good about yourself except by putting others down,but I have accomplished more than you have, that' a pathetic game, you just mark yourself as pathetic by needing to play it

- So are you claiming that history of ideas makes you some kind of expert in emergent phenomena? If somebody notes something you say about science that is wrong, what makes you think that your study of history gives you superior knowledge to dismiss their corrections? Last time I checked, it is still history, and not science. You may have studied some scientific topics in your history course, but you still don't know science like someone who has actually spent years studying science.
Anonymous said…
JH: that' only if we are having a discussion between theology and science,I was ginning theological view but in terms of speaking scientifically we can just omit the God part and talk about it as though it's all secular, that's if you want to keep it scientific.

How can we discuss your theory, which invokes a spirit linking the brain to the god-consciousness, and omit the god part? Let us omit the spirit part too then we can compare your emergence theory with mine... and discover they are exactly the same!

JH: emergence means there is no graduate transitional evolution marking the drift toward a given tendency. There's just a sudden appearance of the trait. That can come with to without subservience, that's a different issue.

Emergence certainly does not imply that. The property of wetness does not suddenly in water when the number of molecules hits a magic number. Instead, it is a gradual thing, with the wetness property becoming more apparent as the count increases.

Similarly I would expect consciousness to slowly appear in a person as the brain develops in the womb - and even after birth. I would expect rudimentary consciousness in more advanced animals, such as chimps and dolphins, and perhaps even cats and dogs. For comparison see the mirror test (though it is testing for self-awareness, which seems likely to be related to consciousness).

JH: With the property duelist position mind i non physical property supervenes upon the physical. Meaning mind is dependency upon brain but is not reducible to it. it's only muddy if you can't follow a line of reasoning.

Looking at the software/hardware analogy, would you say that software is emergent? I have never thought of it in that way, but I guess it is. I think that again we see a gradual process. With very early computers, you could probably work out what was happening by the state of the valves. Obviously computers have got more and more complex, and there is no way you could inspect the state of the voltages in the chips to determine what the computer was actually doing.

JH: one other thing pix I really did mean to attack you that crack that you don't know history of ideas,I was just making a little mock bravado plugging my discipline for humor, Hope you did not feel insulted,

No problem. It never even crossed my mind that it was personal.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: that' only if we are having a discussion between theology and science,I was ginning theological view but in terms of speaking scientifically we can just omit the God part and talk about it as though it's all secular, that's if you want to keep it scientific.

How can we discuss your theory, which invokes a spirit linking the brain to the god-consciousness, and omit the god part? Let us omit the spirit part too then we can compare your emergence theory with mine... and discover they are exactly the same!

O yes of course but I was talking about how the ideas could be handled scientifically,I am not a scientist so I'm just giving an idea of how I think it might work, I have to talk about the the logical aspects here and now to make everything make sense,



JH: emergence means there is no graduate transitional evolution marking the drift toward a given tendency. There's just a sudden appearance of the trait. That can come with to without subservience, that's a different issue.

Emergence certainly does not imply that. The property of wetness does not suddenly in water when the number of molecules hits a magic number. Instead, it is a gradual thing, with the wetness property becoming more apparent as the count increases.

I think that's wrong, there are probably different views on it we are dealing in two different schools.I an not sure that wetness is emerent,

holism states that the relation of the parts to the whole is such that the individual parts do not explain the state of the whole. This includes aspects of emergent properties that can’t be reduced to the parts that produced them. This latter formulation, non-separability, is the cousin of holism: it’s the idea that the state of the parts does not explain the state of the whole

the source: Healey, Richard, "Holism and Nonseparability in Physics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/physics-holism/, visited 4/25/2012


Similarly I would expect consciousness to slowly appear in a person as the brain develops in the womb - and even after birth. I would expect rudimentary consciousness in more advanced animals, such as chimps and dolphins, and perhaps even cats and dogs. For comparison see the mirror test (though it is testing for self-awareness, which seems likely to be related to consciousness).

sounds reasonable but I was talking about the trait a a whole when it shows up in an evolutionary sense.

JH: With the property duelist position mind i non physical property supervenes upon the physical. Meaning mind is dependency upon brain but is not reducible to it. it's only muddy if you can't follow a line of reasoning.

Looking at the software/hardware analogy, would you say that software is emergent? I have never thought of it in that way, but I guess it is. I think that again we see a gradual process. With very early computers, you could probably work out what was happening by the state of the valves. Obviously computers have got more and more complex, and there is no way you could inspect the state of the voltages in the chips to determine what the computer was actually doing.

that's also reasonable,

JH: one other thing pix I really did not mean to attack you that crack that you don't know history of ideas,I was just making a little mock bravado plugging my discipline for humor, Hope you did not feel insulted,

No problem. It never even crossed my mind that it was personal.

good! great discussion
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
Skep modern historians don't just memorize names and dates, they engage with the ideas and the subject matter, especially in history of ideas, or intellectual physiotherapy one must know the ideas.

BTW these personal attacks are not contributing to discussion. You are not pulling your weight in this thing.
Joe Hinman said…
warning for Skeptic. sties one, no more personal attacks,
Joe Hinman said…
that is supped to say "strike" one
Anonymous said…
JH: I think that's wrong, there are probably different views on it we are dealing in two different schools.I an not sure that wetness is emerent,

It is a bit ill-defined. If you prefer we can conbsider the properties "liquid" or "viscosity". A single water molecule is not a liquid, and has no viscosity. However, if you have 10^23 of them (3 g) at 25degC, then they are a liquid with viscosity. The whole - the 3 g of water - has more than the sum of the parts.

JH: holism states that the relation of the parts to the whole is such that the individual parts do not explain the state of the whole. This includes aspects of emergent properties that can’t be reduced to the parts that produced them. This latter formulation, non-separability, is the cousin of holism: it’s the idea that the state of the parts does not explain the state of the whole

I would say the whole has properties that are not expected from the properties of the parts; I think it is a stretch to say they cannot be explained. Can you cite any examples outside the consciousness debate where that is the case?

JH: the source: Healey, Richard, "Holism and Nonseparability in Physics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/physics-holism/, visited 4/25/2012

I read the page here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/

... but spotted nothing that indicated that "the idea that the state of the parts does not explain the state of the whole".

JH: sounds reasonable but I was talking about the trait a a whole when it shows up in an evolutionary sense.

I was talking about both, which is why I mentioned the animals.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
warning for Skeptic. sties one, no more personal attacks

OK, Joe. Please hold yourself to your own standards. What motivated my comment in the first place is your belittling of the knowledge of others, and the fact that you do that all the time. Whether you realize it or not, that is a personal attack. So I'll agree if you will, to keep the discussion to the matter at hand.

As for the issue of emergent phenomena, Pix is quite correct. In general, there is no sudden tipping point at which the phenomenon emerges. And conscious experience is perhaps the best example of that. We can look at the whole range of creatures that have central nervous systems. What we see is a whole range of levels of sentience and consciousness, that corresponds with the complexity of the nervous system. It is quite clear that consciousness as an emergent phenomenon is not something that suddenly pops up in creatures at some particular level of complexity.
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
warning for Skeptic. sties one, no more personal attacks

OK, Joe. Please hold yourself to your own standards. What motivated my comment in the first place is your belittling of the knowledge of others, and the fact that you do that all the time. Whether you realize it or not, that is a personal attack. So I'll agree if you will, to keep the discussion to the matter at hand.

if you read the material you would know I apologized to him for that and told him I was not be littering him and he said it was fine.you think that because you do it and you think everyone does what you do,

As for the issue of emergent phenomena, Pix is quite correct. In general, there is no sudden tipping point at which the phenomenon emerges.

that is ludicrous, that's why they call it emergence,i did not call it a tipping point.nope I documented my point with scientific source you have none and Pix has none,that's the whole point of emergence,the idea that it emerges with no prior appearances,

And conscious experience is perhaps the best example of that. We can look at the whole range of creatures that have central nervous systems. What we see is a whole range of levels of sentience and consciousness, that corresponds with the complexity of the nervous system. It is quite clear that consciousness as an emergent phenomenon is not something that suddenly pops up in creatures at some particular level of complexity.

that does not is prove my point,

11/21/2017 08:46:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
if you read the material you would know I apologized to him for that and told him I was not be littering him and he said it was fine.you think that because you do it and you think everyone does what you do
- Joe, you made your remark first, and I responded to it. Only after that did you apologize.


that is ludicrous, that's why they call it emergence,i did not call it a tipping point.
- Here's what you said: "emergence means there is no graduate transitional evolution marking the drift toward a given tendency. There's just a sudden appearance of the trait." That statement is patently false. There are transitions.


that does not is prove my point
- At this point, is becomes difficult to discern what your point is.
Joe Hinman said…
that is ludicrous, that's why they call it emergence,i did not call it a tipping point.
- Here's what you said: "emergence means there is no graduate transitional evolution marking the drift toward a given tendency. There's just a sudden appearance of the trait." That statement is patently false. There are transitions.


No it's not. Here's the quote I've already alluded to and partly quoted in Stanford doctory of Phil

"Emergence is a notorious philosophical term of art. A variety of theorists have appropriated it for their purposes ever since George Henry Lewes gave it a philosophical sense in his 1875 Problems of Life and Mind. We might roughly characterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. (For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.) Each of the quoted terms is slippery in its own right, and their specifications yield the varied notions of emergence that we discuss below. There has been renewed interest in emergence within discussions of the behavior of complex systems and debates over the reconcilability of mental causation, intentionality, or consciousness with physicalism."

remember I said there are different theories of emergence and the kind i;m talking about is this way, you are making a general statement that paints them all with the same brush that;s false,


Ibid

"1 The Standard Ontology of Emergence: Supervenience Emergentism

Recall that among the British Emergentists, Mill and Broad had a more robustly ontological conception of emergence than the notions discussed immediately above. This is not always transparent in their writings, as they sometimes use epistemological criteria for identifying the metaphysical concept they have in mind. Here we offer a composite picture that captures what is implicit or explicit in a widespread understanding of ontological emergence from that era right up to much recent writing. We dub this view “supervenience emergentism.”

Ontological emergentists see the physical world as entirely constituted by physical structures, simple or composite. But composites are not (always) mere aggregates of the simples. There are layered strata, or levels, of objects, based on increasing complexity. Each new layer is a consequence of the appearance of an interacting range of ‘novel qualities.’ Their novelty is not merely temporal (such as the first instance of a particular geometric configuration), nor the first instance of a particular determinate of a familiar determinable (such as the first instance of mass 157.6819 kg in a contiguous hunk of matter). Instead, it is a novel, fundamental type of property altogether. We might say that it is ‘nonstructural,’ in that the occurrence of the property is not in any sense constituted by the occurrence of more fundamental properties and relations of the object's parts. Further, newness of property, in this sense, entails new primitiv"

im-skeptical said…
Joe, you are arguing philosophy. I'm talking about physical reality.
Joe Hinman said…
emergence is a theory about physical reality. There are different versions of the theory,but does say say that qualities and preregister can just appear without prior apparent traditions, a long slow build up.
Joe Hinman said…
this is me in my forth coning book, I have three foot notes in this quote:

emergent properties are dotard castration they are opposite of reductionist thinking

"Systems theory has been construed as anti-reductionism. In this stance it says “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” Reductionism says that we can know the nature of the whole by knowing the nature of the parts, because the whole is nothing else but the sum of the parts and can be reduced to the parts. The basic assumption of systems theory in its anti-reductionist stance is that because the whole has emergent properties, it is more than the sum of its parts— thus, the whole cannot be reduced to the parts. This means that mind can’t be reduced to brain. Some thinkers prefer to call emergence “downward causation.”53 Downward causation (or “top-down” causation) is the opposite of the reductionist premise; it says, “The behavior of the parts is determined by the behavior of the whole.”54 “Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior, but instead require reference to the higher-level system itself.”55 "


[53]
Francis Heylighen, “Downward Causation.” Principia Cybernetica web Online resource. Sept 15, 1995,
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html
(accessed 5/09/2012)
summarizing work of Donald T. Campbell 1974. Heylighen is a research professor at Free University of Brussels and director of Global Brain Institute. : , visited
see also Campbell D.T. (1990): "Levels of Organization, Downward Causation, and the Selection-Theory Approach to Evolutionary Epistemology", in: Scientific Methodology in the Study of Mind: Evolutionary Epistemolog


[54]
Ibid

[55]
Mary Ann Meyers “Top Down Causation: An integrating theme within and across the sciences.” A symposium by the John Templeton foundation, Participants from the Royal Society, Contact Mary Ann Meyers Senior Fellow, 2010, website: URL http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/index.html, visited 09/25/12.










im-skeptical said…
Top-down causation. Really, Joe?

No serious scientist believes in this teleological view of causation. This is religion masquerading as science. It's no different from intelligent design.
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Top-down causation. Really, Joe?

No serious scientist believes in this teleological view of causation. This is religion masquerading as science. It's no different from intelligent design.

Here's the undergraduate approach again, you expect us to accept your word above that of printed sources,I've already documented the sources that prove what I say.

I am betting that your disdain for top down causes is based upon atheist sites where it is equivocated with miracles and supernatural. That proves nothing about the actual theory,

I jut documented that top down is a synonym for emergent, atheists love to talk about emergence because they think that proves evolution or something but in fact it is the same as top down,which anesthetists hate because they know of examples where top down is used to support supernatural. You have to be careful with labels. This is what comes of not knowing the history of an idea.

As it so happens most phsicsts are non reductionists andaccept holism and emergence.

Yousay Noscineittsacdpetsthis only becauwseyou eon;t shoscinetiifcpublicantsinotsee who does aceptit yoaretlolold whattothinby athesitsites,
Joe Hinman said…
You say No scientist accepts this only because you get your info from atheist websites,

Healey, Richard, "Holism and Nonseparability in Physics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/physics-holism/, visited 4/25/2012

"It is surprisingly difficult to find methodological reductionists among physicists. The elementary particle physicist Steven Weinberg, for example, is an avowed reductionist. He believes that by asking any sequence of deeper and deeper why-questions one will arrive ultimately at the same fundamental laws of physics. But this explanatory reductionism is metaphysical in so far as he takes explanation to be an ontic rather than a pragmatic category. On this view, it is not physicists but the fundamental laws themselves that explain why “higher level” scientific principles are the way they are. Weinberg (1992) explicitly distinguishes his view from methodological reductionism by saying that there is no reason to suppose that the convergence of scientific explanations must lead to a convergence of scientific methods.i"
im-skeptical said…
Joe, the Templeton Foundation pays scientists big money to produce religious bunkum. Top-down causation is one of their favorite projects. Serious scientists balk at anything that is sponsored by them, because it is likely to be tainted with religious ideology. And much of it is. Most of them refuse to accept funding from Templeton because it entails a religious bias, but not all do. Money talks.
Joe Hinman said…
that's bull shit. That's just jealously talking because they can't win the money. Look at whose won it they are not giving it to flat earth creation guys, they give it to figures who are already tops in science.
BK said…
"the Templeton Foundation pays scientists big money to produce religious bunkum." Ah yes, the "let's dismiss it because of the source" argument. With that mindset, anyone can dismiss almost any data that disagrees with his/her views irregardless of the soundness of the study. Nice.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
With that mindset, anyone can dismiss almost any data that disagrees with his/her views irregardless of the soundness of the study. Nice.

- Of course, the soundness of the study is of prime importance. It is precisely the blatant religious BIAS of much of the research sponsored by Templeton that makes it far more likely to be unsound.
Joe Hinman said…
Of course, the soundness of the study is of prime importance. It is precisely the blatant religious BIAS of much of the research sponsored by Templeton that makes it far more likely to be unsound.

prove it? you are making basless claims, show me study and prove it was biased in that away.

I had the Larson study at one time that was a literate search and analyzed social sic nee publications so none of the data was by people who had any connection with Templetom and were not writing about religion specifically,
im-skeptical said…
The goal of Templeton is to inject religion into science. Check this out.

Richard Healey is funded by Templeton.

George Ellis, a leading researcher in "top-down causation" is funded by Templeton.

Top down causation is nothing but religious bullshit, and you can't find any REAL scientific material that supports it.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
The goal of Templeton is to inject religion into science. Check this out.

that is regurgitation from atheist websites,It's very coronation and it's just opinion not even your pinon really but you buy into it. The actual self professed goal of Templeton is different. Here's what they say about themselves:

"The John Templeton Foundation aims to advance human well-being by supporting research on the Big Questions, and by promoting character development, individual freedom, and free markets. The Foundation takes its vision from its founding benefactor, the late Sir John Templeton, who sought to stimulate what he described as “spiritual progress." that is quoting their website:


here



Richard Healey is funded by Templeton.

George Ellis, a leading researcher in "top-down causation" is funded by Templeton.

Ellis was a big time reductionist and scientisim guy like you, he did his own original research and discoverer the basis for real theory of top down. I was researching him at the time and followed his discoveries, he was not a religious person he he's not necessarily one now.You always assert anyone who disproves your ideology is religious.That is your only way of dismissing things you can't answer.

Top down causation is nothing but religious bullshit, and you can't find any REAL scientific material that supports it.

I've already documented the falsehood of that assertion ,that's nothing more than ignorant crap you don't understand it so you fear it, you are just regurgitating what atheists websites say about it, without knowing anything abouit it myself,

I just documented above that top down is really the same as emergent properties, but has nothing to do with religion, no most atheists will say consciousness is emergent, they think emergent means pop out of nothing with no prior cause so they take it to prove evolution and no God.all total ignorance.

I just showed that most physicists are into top down causation and (because it is emergence) and are not reductionists,



Joe Hinman said…
on dangerous idea i just got thoroughgoing with an atheist science worshiper likely God hating science worshiper who says emergent disposables religion. see the quote above where I show top down is another name for emergent property.
Anonymous said…
Joe, can you explain how top-=down causation supports your position. I read an article about it here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262299/

... and saw nothing contentious in it. It seems perfectly compatible with consciousness as an emergent property in a purely physical world.

How does it lead to supposing there is a spirit of god-consciousness?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said…
Joe, can you explain how top-=down causation supports your position. I read an article about it here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262299/

... and saw nothing contentious in it. It seems perfectly compatible with consciousness as an emergent property in a purely physical world.

How does it lead to supposing there is a spirit of god-consciousness?


It doesn't. It does not prove spirit, it doesn't contradict it, The two are compatible, thus, it enables me to say that some of my view of the spirit is largely compatible with some modern scientific views of consciousness.Where I differ is in my belief ofa core element called "spirit," but it;s still an aspect of mind. For me spirit is mind,or part of the mind.
Joe Hinman said…
I see the function of spirit as the aspect of ind through which we can relate to God, it's perhaps what is meant by made in the image of God.
im-skeptical said…
Ellis was a big time reductionist and scientisim guy like you, he did his own original research and discoverer the basis for real theory of top down. I was researching him at the time and followed his discoveries, he was not a religious person he he's not necessarily one now.You always assert anyone who disproves your ideology is religious.That is your only way of dismissing things you can't answer.

- You really put you foot in your mouth this time, Joe. His religious affiliation (as a Quaker) is well-known. Ellis is about as religious as a scientist can be. His work is riddled through and through with his religious assumptions, and that's precisely why it is religious bullshit that IS NOT ACCEPTED by the broader scientific community. For an idea of his religious views, see this commentary about one of his books.

Here's a FACT for you: top-down causation is religious bullshit that is not accepted by the general scientific community.
im-skeptical said…
I just documented above that top down is really the same as emergent properties, but has nothing to do with religion, no most atheists will say consciousness is emergent

- Your association of emergence with top-down causation only comes from religious hacks like Ellis. Yes scientists agree that there is emergence, but they don't deny the laws of physics, which apply at the lowest levels, and cause everything that happens at higher levels. Top down causation is a denial of naturalism and science. It is a denial of the laws of physics. It is religiously motivated teleology. And that's exactly why religiously motivated people like yourself are so enamored with it.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Ellis was a big time reductionist and scientisim guy like you, he did his own original research and discoverer the basis for real theory of top down. I was researching him at the time and followed his discoveries, he was not a religious person he he's not necessarily one now.You always assert anyone who disproves your ideology is religious.That is your only way of dismissing things you can't answer.

- You really put you foot in your mouth this time, Joe. His religious affiliation (as a Quaker) is well-known. Ellis is about as religious as a scientist can be. His work is riddled through and through with his religious assumptions, and that's precisely why it is religious bullshit that IS NOT ACCEPTED by the broader scientific community. For an idea of his religious views, see this commentary about one of his books.

since you don;'t know anything about theology you are just making stupid assumptions about whats a is a religious assumption and what is not, you assertions that you know all about in is based upon some atheist websites,I watched the transformation in his research take place,

Here's a FACT for you: top-down causation is religious bullshit that is not accepted by the general scientific community.

I alreqdy told you this some people use or try to use top down causation to prove miracles but that's a false use of it. that is not the origin of the concept, your own atheist alliey Pixie had just said it's not incomparable with science, he is a scientist so you must listen he outranks you, he's a priest of knowledge.

I documented that top down causation is emergent properties,so you are merely wrong, you are basig that upon a false concpet that you got from ignorant atheists,
Joe Hinman said…
read this. your opinion vs facts in rpint vy experts who I quote:

"Systems theory has been construed as anti-reductionism. In this stance it says “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” Reductionism says that we can know the nature of the whole by knowing the nature of the parts, because the whole is nothing else but the sum of the parts and can be reduced to the parts. The basic assumption of systems theory in its anti-reductionist stance is that because the whole has emergent properties, it is more than the sum of its parts— thus, the whole cannot be reduced to the parts. This means that mind can’t be reduced to brain. Some thinkers prefer to call emergence “downward causation.”53 Downward causation (or “top-down” causation) is the opposite of the reductionist premise; it says, “The behavior of the parts is determined by the behavior of the whole.”54 “Top-down causation refers to the effects on components of organized systems that cannot be fully analyzed in terms of component-level behavior, but instead require reference to the higher-level system itself.”55 "


[53]
Francis Heylighen, “Downward Causation.” Principia Cybernetica web Online resource. Sept 15, 1995,
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html
(accessed 5/09/2012)
summarizing work of Donald T. Campbell 1974. Heylighen is a research professor at Free University of Brussels and director of Global Brain Institute. : , visited
see also Campbell D.T. (1990): "Levels of Organization, Downward Causation, and the Selection-Theory Approach to Evolutionary Epistemology", in: Scientific Methodology in the Study of Mind: Evolutionary Epistemolog


[54]
Ibid

[55]
Mary Ann Meyers “Top Down Causation: An integrating theme within and across the sciences.” A symposium by the John Templeton foundation, Participants from the Royal Society, Contact Mary Ann Meyers Senior Fellow, 2010, website: URL http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/index.html, visited 09/25/12.


im-skeptical said…
I'll read your crap from Templeton and the Global Brain Institute as soon as you read some REAL SCIENCE.
Joe Hinman said…
Your association of emergence with top-down causation only comes from religious hacks like Ellis. Yes scientists agree that there is emergence,

I juster documented where it;s from,summarizing work of Donald T. Campbell 1974. Heylighen is a research professor at Free University of Brussels and director of Global Brain Institute. : , visited
see also Campbell D.T. (1990): "Levels of Organization, Downward Causation, and the Selection-Theory Approach to Evolutionary Epistemology", in: Scientific Methodology in the Study of Mind: Evolutionary Epistemolog

that sound like a religious guy to you? you really are just labeling anything you can;t answer as "religious" as a ploy to avoid admitting you are wrong, this is why you have no credibility you are a loudmouth who can't reason.





but they don't deny the laws of physics,

explain to me how it denies the laws of physics? which law of physics says the whole can't be greater then the sum of the parts? Nothing in the laws of physics contrast God anyway. laws assume a system but they do not assume there can't be something outside the system,

which apply at the lowest levels, and cause everything that happens at higher levels.

that desceibestop downa causation, top down also allows for some group up.

Top down causation is a denial of naturalism and science.


It is certainly not a Daniel of science. that is total ignorance. naturalism is not science it's philosophy,

It is a denial of the laws of physics. It is religiously motivated teleology. And that's exactly why religiously motivated people like yourself are so enamored with it.

you don;t know what you are talking about,that's just repeating the same lie I just disproved, you don't know shit about top down causation
Joe Hinman said…
I know in your silly little world view quoting one Tempelton source outweighs all other sources and disqualifies anything else quote, but real thinkers don;t think thatway, Go as Ryan M. anot the way it;s done.

quoting myeres does not disqualify HEYLIGHEN. look at his statment of purope:




Francis HEYLIGHEN
CLEA, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
E-mail: fheyligh@vub.ac.be
ABSTRACT. The Principia Cybernetica Project was created to develop an
integrated philosophy or world view, based on the theories of evolution, selforganization,
systems and cybernetics. Its conceptual network has been implemented
as an extensive website. The present paper reviews the assumptions behind the
project, focusing on its rationale, its philosophical presuppositions, and its concrete
methodology for computer-supported collaborative development. Principia
Cybernetica starts from a process ontology, where a sequence of elementary actions
produces ever more complex forms of organization through the mechanism of
variation and selection, and metasystem transition. Its epistemology is
constructivist and evolutionary: models are constructed by subjects for their own
purposes, but undergo selection by the environment. Its ethics takes fitness and the
continuation of evolution as the basic value, and derives more concrete guidelines
from this implicit purpose. Together, these postulates and their implications
provide answers to a range of age-old philosophical questions.


where's the religion?


your paranoia of Templeton is stupid as I have already shown that they are not trying to mkake science rleiigous but to teach religious people to do science,
Joe Hinman said…
here is more documetation that top down causation is not religious.

from source published by PMC
US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262299/

the abstract below you will see then speaking of top down as a fact speaking of how it works and it describing it unscientific terms, then you see then them discuss it as emergence,


--quote--
ABSTRACT
Both bottom-up and top-down causation occur in the hierarchy of structure and causation. A key feature is multiple realizability of higher level functions, and consequent existence of equivalence classes of lower level variables that correspond to the same higher level state. Five essentially different classes of top-down influence can be identified, and their existence demonstrated by many real-world examples. They are: algorithmic top-down causation; top-down causation via non-adaptive information control, top-down causation via adaptive selection, top-down causation via adaptive information control and intelligent top-down causation (the effect of the human mind on the physical world). Through the mind, abstract entities such as mathematical structures have causal power. The causal slack enabling top-down action to take place lies in the structuring of the system so as to attain higher level functions; in the way the nature of lower level elements is changed by context, and in micro-indeterminism combined with adaptive selection. Understanding top-down causation can have important effects on society. Two cases will be mentioned: medical/healthcare issues, and education—in particular, teaching reading and writing. In both cases, an ongoing battle between bottom-up and top-down approaches has important consequences for society.

1. COMPLEXITY AND EMERGENCE
Physics underlies all complexity, including our own existence. How is this possible? How can our own lives emerge from interactions of electrons, protons and neutrons?

The basis of complexity is modular hierarchical structures, leading to emergent levels of structure and function based on lower level networks. Each of these aspects (‘modular’, ‘hierarchical’ and ‘structure’) is crucial in the emergence of complexity out of interactions between simpler units [1,2]. The basic principle is that when you have a complex task to perform, you break it up into subtasks that are each simpler than the overall project, requiring less data and less computing power, and assign these tasks to specific modules. Each module is again split up into submodules until you reach a base level where the necessary tasks are simple operations that can be carried out by simple mechanisms. This is the level where the real work is done, each of these components feeding its results into the next higher level components until the desired result emerges at the appropriate higher level. The modules at each level will interact with each other in some way: maybe just statistically, if they all carry out the same task, or maybe in the form of a complex interaction network, when each of them will generally carry out different tasks. The result is a highly structured hierarchy of interacting entities.

--end quote--
Joe Hinman said…
here' quote froj puib med, youare going to tgellme thatpu nedis a reliious groupor tati;ws Tepleton? You do inkowwhatPub nedis don;t you?

It is speaking of top down causation in scinetiifc terms and discusses it as a scientific program.

--quote--
Format: AbstractSend to
J R Soc Interface. 2008 Oct 6;5(27):1159-72. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2008.0018.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18319208


"Top-down causation by information control: from a philosophical problem to a scientific research programme."

Auletta G1, Ellis GF, Jaeger L.
Author information
Abstract
It has been claimed that different types of causes must be considered in biological systems, including top-down as well as same-level and bottom-up causation, thus enabling the top levels to be causally efficacious in their own right. To clarify this issue, the important distinctions between information and signs are introduced here and the concepts of information control and functional equivalence classes in those systems are rigorously defined and used to characterize when top-down causation by feedback control happens, in a way that is testable. The causally significant elements we consider are equivalence classes of lower level processes, realized in biological systems through different operations having the same outcome within the context of information control and networks.
PMID: 18319208 PMCID: PMC3226993 DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2008.0018
[Indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+


--end quote--
im-skeptical said…
Religious bullshit, Joe. Physics doesn't work from the top down. Leave that to God.
Joe Hinman said…
you are spouting slogans you don't understand, You are actually calling pub med religious, you don't now that that is,you don't know shit about science if you don't know that!

hahahaahhahahahahahhahahahaha you don't know! you are spouting lines fr atheist handlers you don't even understand the basics. Top down does not mean strictly to down because it inc includes ground up you are so foolish you have no idea what you are talking about,

I just disproved your whole act you are a fake!

the quotes are there in front of your face,follow the link to scientific websites, see you are wrong
im-skeptical said…
You believe anything that some religious hack says because that'w what you want to hear. Quote them all you like. It's still religious-inspired bullshit, designed to appeal to people like you.



7th Stooge said…
You believe anything that some religious hack says because that'w what you want to hear. Quote them all you like. It's still religious-inspired bullshit, designed to appeal to people like you.

This is ad hom and appeal to motive. We all get that you hate religion. Can you focus on the arguments and the evidence themselves?
im-skeptical said…
We all get that you hate religion.

This is ad hom and appeal to motive.


Arguments and evidence. OK. The evidence tells us that physics doesn't work from the top down. That would be teleology. Which is religious, and has no support in science.



Joe Hinman said…
Skep you blown your credibility. Pub med is a major academic composure that's really stupid not to know that. You have not quoted a single source, I have, I have the only documentation on this page.
Joe Hinman said…
Arguments and evidence. OK. The evidence tells us that physics doesn't work from the top down. That would be teleology. Which is religious, and has no support in science.

what evidence tells us that? you have not given a single price of evidence your opinion is not proof,

btwI also quoted a source saying that physicists support top down and think holistically, so you are wrong,
im-skeptical said…
btwI also quoted a source saying that physicists support top down and think holistically, so you are wrong

- All you quoted is religious bullshit. There's plenty of that. Now go read some real science.

And btw, I don't need to go searching for quotes to know the difference between science and pseudoscience.
im-skeptical said…
Oh, and another thing: that quote from Ellis you gave:
"The causally significant elements we consider are equivalence classes of lower level processes"
is really just doublespeak for physics at the LOWEST levels. There is no top-down causation. He's pandering to religious fools like you, who want to believe there's something else going on.


Joe Hinman said…
- All you quoted is religious bullshit. There's plenty of that. Now go read some real science.

And btw, I don't need to go searching for quotes to know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

11/25/2017 08:18:00 PM Delete

I did not quote a single religious source and you know it. show ne why they are religious,prove they are religious liar,stop flapping your ignorant little gums and prove they are religious, pipsqueak.

the only basis you have for that lie is that they disprove your nonsense, you can't defend your only argument,
Joe Hinman said…
And btw, I don't need to go searching for quotes to know the difference between science and pseudoscience.


you are just trying to argue that you don't need evidence, when you get to that point you have lost! Evidence (printed material) always outweighs opinon
Joe Hinman said…
Oh, and another thing: that quote from Ellis you gave:
"The causally significant elements we consider are equivalence classes of lower level processes"
is really just doublespeak for physics at the LOWEST levels. There is no top-down causation. He's pandering to religious fools like you, who want to believe there's something else going on.

again, top down includes group as well its both. also:

(1) as I have proven most atheists embrace emergent prioritizes top down is emergence

(2) the two articles from pub med say there is top down


(3) top down is not religions I documented it was started by British reductionist, So it;s an atheist idea,
im-skeptical said…
Joe, you really don't know what you're talking about.

I did not quote a single religious source and you know it.
- Anything funded by Templeton is a religious source. They exist for the purpose of mixing religion into science. And Ellis is not an atheist. He's a Quaker.

Evidence (printed material) always outweighs opinon
- Anybody can write bullshit and have it published. That's what your book is. And it's what your second book is shaping up as.

you are just trying to argue that you don't need evidence
- I have science on my side. You have google. You don't understand science, so any quackery you find will do.

most atheists embrace emergent
- Most scientists do.

top down is emergence
- That's religious pseudoscience, like ID.

two articles from pub med say there is top down
- Now go read some real science.

top down is not religions
- Why are you so thrilled about top-down causation Joe? Let's hear an honest answer.

I documented it was started by British reductionist, So it;s an atheist idea
- You mean Ellis? He's south African, and not an atheist. And if the author is a reductionist, then BY DEFINITION, he doesn't believe in top-down causation. That's the opposite of reductionism. On the other hand,
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Joe, you really don't know what you're talking about.

I did not quote a single religious source and you know it.

- Anything funded by Templeton is a religious source. They exist for the purpose of mixing religion into science. And Ellis is not an atheist. He's a Quaker.

that is a fucking excuse to not have to research. you know it! Paul Davies is a major physicist he is accepted by physicists as valid scientist/ he won the templeton prize no other physicist has dared to accuse him of not being scientific.

Evidence (printed material) always outweighs opinon
- Anybody can write bullshit and ha

anyone can spout an opinion as you do you have to prove what you say you dan't do that just by making statements of your own authority

you are just trying to argue that you don't need evidence

- I have science on my side. You have google. You don't understand science, so any quackery you find will do.

you do not, I have God on my side but I don't expect you to believe that just on my say so. you must prove what you say we will not credit you with expertise you don't have

most atheists embrace emergent
- Most scientists do.

I proved that top down is emergence and you refuse to accept it.

top down is emergence
- That's religious pseudoscience, like ID.


that i ignorant Sukkot bandersnatch anyone could spout, you have no proof you are just making an excuse for your bigotoed ignorance,

two articles from pub med say there is top down
- Now go read some real science.

you prove here you do not know shit about science because pub med is a totally valid source you are an idiot not to know that,

top down is not religions
- Why are you so thrilled about top-down causation Joe? Let's hear an honest answer.

It's a methodological alternative to reductionism';that does not make it religions. i already prove it originated among secular philosopher in
British school




I documented it was started by British reductionist, So it;s an atheist idea
- You mean Ellis? He's south African, and not an atheist. And if the author is a reductionist, then BY DEFINITION, he doesn't believe in top-down causation. That's the opposite of reductionism. On the other hand,

you foolish jackass I don't mean Ellis why are you ignaornt? I know because you refuse to read. see above the Sandford article,

Ok you have nothing knew to say,you are down to trying to for use to accept your word as though you have epistemic authority and you do not,

you are wasting my time.I will not play this game with you if you post must prove your assertions,

THIS THREAD IS CLOSED
Joe Hinman said…
What is NCBI?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/home/about/mission/

Basic Research

"As a national resource for molecular biology information, NCBI's mission is to develop new information technologies to aid in the understanding of fundamental molecular and genetic processes that control health and disease. More specifically, the NCBI has been charged with creating automated systems for storing and analyzing knowledge about molecular biology, biochemistry, and genetics; facilitating the use of such databases and software by the research and medical community; coordinating efforts to gather biotechnology information both nationally and internationally; and performing research into advanced methods of computer-based information processing for analyzing the structure and function of biologically important molecules."

NCBI has Melime, Medline has pub med



btw just so you know here is Pub med';s own explanation of what they are

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

"PubMed comprises more than 27 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites."



what is medline?

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html

Fact Sheet
MEDLINE®
MEDLINE logo

MEDLINE is the U.S. National Library of Medicine® (NLM) premier bibliographic database that contains more than 24 million references to journal articles in life sciences with a concentration on biomedicine. A distinctive feature of MEDLINE is that the records are indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®). MEDLINE is the online counterpart to MEDLARS® (MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System) that originated in 1964.

The great majority of journals are selected for MEDLINE based on the recommendation of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee (LSTRC), an NIH-chartered advisory committee of external experts analogous to the committees that review NIH grant applications. Some additional journals and newsletters are selected based on NLM-initiated reviews, e.g., history of medicine, health services research, AIDS, toxicology and environmental health, molecular biology, and complementary medicine, that are special priorities for NLM or other NIH components. These reviews generally also involve consultation with an array of NIH and outside experts or, in some cases, external organizations with which NLM has or had special collaborative arrangements.

MEDLINE is the primary component of PubMed®, part of the Entrez series of databases provided by the NLM National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).

Time coverage: MEDLINE includes literature published from 1966 to present, and selected coverage of literature prior to that period. See OLDMEDLINE Data for coverage details about the pre-1966 citations that are not comprehensive for that time period.

Source: Currently, citations from more than 5,600 worldwide journals in about 40 languages; about 60 languages for older journals. Citations for MEDLINE are created by the NLM, international partners, and collaborating organizations.


dcleve said…
If Pixie is still interested, I can offer several references that, while not definitive, will provide some useful perspective. Basically nobody has constructed a valid view of consciousness yet.

Paul Churchland tries to do so based on neural net identity theory here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R5048CH7VMV78?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

An Esalen team tries to make a case for the Perrenial Philosophy here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RZY1A4EL2JOZ4?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

Blackmore shows how all physicalist models are refuted, so ends up denying consciousness even exists here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R1C1TJFIWBZ8ZQ?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

And another team tries to take down dualism (unsuccessfully) here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R10Z02T2ZEYPFY?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

Strong emergence, and substance dualism, appear to me to be the only viable routes forward -- and substance dualism appears to be the more powerful science framework. But you are correct, there isn't much active work being done. The parapsychology research is the most mature, and the energy-healing that is starting to gather steam is the second main area of associated research.

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

The Meaning of the Manger

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?