Regarding Franko...

[BillyJoe]

Billyjoe, I’m still not sure exactly what you are getting at, but we seem to be in agreement that –illusions or not – ultimately (in reality) there is no “free will”.

Yes.
If you look behind the illusion there is only physics and chemistry.
In that sense there is no free will.

The illusion is irrelevant – we are talking about what is TRUE is reality.

The illusion is not irrelevant.
For a start, when some say there is free will, they are refering to this illusion.
For seconds, the illusion, as I said, is real.
Illusions are not something that don't exist. The square in "The Color-bleeding Illusion" is there (as a representation in your brain (like everything else you see)) and the difference in shades of grey in "The Checker-board Illusion" is also there (again as a representation in your brain).
The illusion of free will, similarly, is also there. It is real. It exists. This is all many posters here mean when they say they believe in free will (see Tricky above in reply to my post).
For me, however, the word loses meaning by defining it in this manner. It's a bit like Einstein's "God" or Paul Davies' "God". There is hardly any point of contact between their versions of "God" and the "God" of Religion.

And if you do not have “free will” in reality, then this means there is a force (TLOP), which controls your every action cradle to grave.

Yes.
Even quantum fluctuation and uncertainty and the "unpredictability" of chaotic/complex systems cannot be a source of free will (as opposed to the illusion of free will)

Now what the A-Theists want to assert, is that there is no evidence that this force is conscious. They say (claim) that TLOP must be non-conscious, but that is patently absurd!

Oops. We disagree.

When does a non-conscious, or even a less conscious force tend to control a superior conscious force!?!? Never! I bet you cannot produce ONE single example. It is ALWAYS the case, that Superior consciousnesses tend to control inferior ones. Ergo, if TLOP is controlling you utterly then TLOP (or TLOP’s source) MUST be more conscious then you. To say otherwise is to deny ALL of the evidence.

I suppose you must be saying that you do not believe in "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection".
It is the mechanism by which life proceeds form non-life (not proven, I know, but plenty of evidence to support the possibility) and consciousness from non-consciousness (much more speculative, I agree, but lots of promising work been done in that area as well).
If we stick with purely physical systems, we have heaps of examples of complexity arising from simplicity or, as Paul Kelly said, "From Little Things Big Things Grow".

There is NO evidence which supports TLOP as non-conscious. It is only wishful thinking on the part of A-Theists. They don’t want there to be a God, because with no God, the A-Theists think that they are the ones who control. It is pure fantasy. Dogma … plain and simple. There is absolutely NO evidence for this belief.

But, of course, the problem with "God" is that we have as big a mystery to be solved as we started with. No progress.
A-theists will have to speak for themselves but, as a Non-theist (or weak(ugh!) atheist), I do not or try not to engage in "wishful thinking". All I wish to do is look at the scientifically (objectively) derived facts and see where they lead. All the rest is pure (subjective) speculation. Interesting speculation, maybe, but not something worth staking your life on.

I thought no evidence one way or the other (i.e. no evidence for True or False) meant the proposition was Unknown?

Yes, unknown.
But what role should the unknown play in your life.
For me, what is known is what is important. This is what I base my life on. What is unknown can only be speculated upon. As I say, perhaps an interesting pastime but not something to stake your life on, in my opinion.

From your point of view there is evidence against faeries in your garden. You have seen your garden many times. You have dug around in it. In all that time you have seen no evidence of faeries.

But if I told you that there were faeries in My garden, and I didn’t really explain what I meant by “faeries” how would you know if there really were “faeries” there or not? You have no evidence either way – does that make my claim FALSE by default? I’d say that it makes my claim UNKNOWN from your POV.

Unknown and irrelevant, I would say, unless you could explain what you did mean by "faeries" and prove your claim about their existence.

The evidence for the “afterlife” is to be found in the nature of the Truth. What I mean by that is, how do you know that the Truth can ever be non-beneficial? Are you simply assuming that it can be? Do you have any evidence for that belief? Once again, I would say that one MUST start with the assumption that it is an UNKNOWN (Is the Truth ever non-beneficial?).

Both hammejk and myself have given examples of where the "the truth" would not have been beneficial but, I guess, you mean "The Truth" (not "the truth").
"The Truth" is only what we can objectively derive and it is always qualified (percentage probability of being True depending on the weight of evidence) but, if it could be proven that the afterlife did not exist, this Truth would not be beneficial to a large percentage of the population.

Once you are a Fatalist, then you are mere “inches” from your Omniworldline and Logical Deism. A superior entity is controlling you. If you are intrinsically sane, you will be compelled to perceive a new Destiny.

Are you speaking speculatively - are you "emotionally attached" to this view - or have you arrived at this view objectively?

 

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

Franko:
There is no “free will” …

Billyjoe:
Yes.
If you look behind the illusion there is only physics and chemistry.
In that sense there is no free will.

Franko:
The illusion is irrelevant – we are talking about what is TRUE is reality.

Billyjoe:
The illusion is not irrelevant.
For a start, when some say there [I[is[/I] free will, they are refering to this illusion.

That makes about as much sense as saying that when a person refers to “red” they are actually denying the existence of oscillating photons.

The fact that you see “red” doesn’t make photons NOT real.

The fact that you perceive “free will” doesn’t make Fate NOT real.

For seconds, the illusion, as I said, is real.
Illusions are not something that don't exist. The square in "The Color-bleeding Illusion" is there (as a representation in your brain (like everything else you see)) and the difference in shades of grey in "The Checker-board Illusion" is also there (again as a representation in your brain).

So I guess what you are saying then is that when a Christian or Hindu has an illusion of Gods, or an Afterlife that the illusion is just as real as your “free will”?

How does that make you any different then any other religious fanatic? You just have different unproveable dogma? Why the double standard?

The illusion of free will, similarly, is also there. It is real. It exists. This is all many posters here mean when they say they believe in free will (see Tricky above in reply to my post).

So Tricky has a mystical belief in “free will” in exactly the same way as a Scientologist believes that the Earth is actually the Prison planet, of a Master Race of Giant, super-intelligent, technologically advanced, Jumbo Jet flying Aliens??

How does that make A-Theism any better than Scientology minus Guru with computerized voice in wheel-chair?

For me, however, the word loses meaning by defining it in this manner. It's a bit like Einstein's "God" or Paul Davies' "God". There is hardly any point of contact between their versions of "God" and the "God" of Religion.

I have no idea what you are Talking about? Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved?

Think of it in terms of reality – everything is actually a Sea of Energy. The “Matter” is simply patterns, or concentrations of Energy in this sea. Your consciousness is Nothing more than a pattern within this energy. Now how is a pattern of Information stored in Energy, making you more Physical then a computer program minus the “computer”.

According to Einstein you are a disembodied consciousness. You are Energy which is aware it is Energy.

Franko:
… And if you do not have “free will” in reality, then this means there is a force (TLOP), which controls your every action cradle to grave.

Billyjoe:
Yes.
Even quantum fluctuation and uncertainty and the "unpredictability" of chaotic/complex systems cannot be a source of free will (as opposed to the illusion of free will)

1) TLOP controls YOU
2) YOU control a CAR.

In #1 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.
In #2 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.

Explain the contradiction?

Franko:
When does a non-conscious, or even a less conscious force tend to control a superior conscious force!?!? Never! I bet you cannot produce ONE single example. It is ALWAYS the case, that Superior consciousnesses tend to control inferior ones. Ergo, if TLOP is controlling you utterly then TLOP (or TLOP’s source) MUST be more conscious then you. To say otherwise is to deny ALL of the evidence.

Billyjoe:
I suppose you must be saying that you do not believe in "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection".

Are you paying attention Billyjoe? The Theory of Evolution is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You are the one who can’t explain evolution.

Tell me Billyjoe – how EXACTLY do charcoal briquettes and warm water turn in to bacteria?

Can you perform the life creation experiment? Abiogensis?

How many breeds of Dogs existed before Man?

It is the mechanism by which life proceeds form non-life (not proven, I know, but plenty of evidence to support the possibility) and consciousness from non-consciousness (much more speculative, I agree, but lots of promising work been done in that area as well).

Yeah … well some Christians assure me that there Bibles are inerrant as well …

If we stick with purely physical systems, we have heaps of examples of complexity arising from simplicity or, as Paul Kelly said, "From Little Things Big Things Grow".

That’s evolution, and I am all Up with Evolution. Godel and Bayes (both far closer to LD, than to A-Theism) are the guys who have the Math on Evolution. You A-Theists got diddly-squat … but that point aside … you are skirting the issue. The issue isn’t Evolution. The issue is Abiogenesis. How does Matter make consciousness.

You see there is ALL kinds of evidence that the reverse can happen, but NONE that Matter makes consciousness you cannot produce ONE scrape of empirical evidence that supports this belief (and spare me Amino Acids! Amino Acids don’t prove ◊◊◊◊!).

Where the AI computer program that passes the Turing test?

[God …] But, of course, the problem with "God" is that we have as big a mystery to be solved as we started with. No progress.

Speak for yourself!

You call yourself A-Theist, and then act surprised that you have found no evidence for God? To me that is kind of like a White-Racist from the South, claiming he’s found no evidence for the equality of Black-people.

A-theists will have to speak for themselves but, as a Non-theist (or weak(ugh!) atheist), I do not or try not to engage in "wishful thinking". All I wish to do is look at the scientifically (objectively) derived facts and see where they lead. All the rest is pure (subjective) speculation. Interesting speculation, maybe, but not something worth staking your life on.

So you gamble on Ceasing to Exist instead??? No ultimate answers is worth staking your life on? Why not be a Theist or Deist purely out of a sense of Optimism?

[Can the Truth not be Beneficial? …]Both hammejk and myself have given examples of where the "the truth" would not have been beneficial but, I guess, you mean "The Truth" (not "the truth").

Truth = What is believed True based on the information at hand.

MetaTruth = What is True in OmniReality. The highest Truth as perceived from a point “outside” the Universe (i.e. outside the universe = Omniverse) = (metaphorically) What the Goddess Believes

"The Truth" is only what we can objectively derive and it is always qualified (percentage probability of being True depending on the weight of evidence) but, if it could be proven that the afterlife did not exist, this Truth would not be beneficial to a large percentage of the population.

Agreed … strangely the inverse proposition is also True. … But the question remains: Is the Truth ever ultimately Harmful (Harmful = Not Beneficial)?

I say, and I assume you’d agree, that the default position is UNKNOWN. So you go from there, what example do you have (which does not Beg the Question) which demonstrates an ultimately non-beneficial Truth?

 

[UserGoogol]

I am hooked up to a pulley.
The pulley controls me.

Therefore, I OBEY THE PULLEY!
Therefore, the Pulley is more concious than I am.

No wait, that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Franko]

UG,

I am hooked up to a pulley.
The pulley controls me.

One single, garden-variety pulley does all that?

… oh wait? You are an A-Theist – aren’t you … ?

Therefore, I OBEY THE PULLEY!
Therefore, the Pulley is more concious than I am.

Probably …

Hey, ahh – UG (nudge) … your desperation is showing …

 

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

That makes about as much sense as saying that when a person refers to “red” they are actually denying the existence of oscillating photons.

The fact that you see “red” doesn’t make photons NOT real.

Those who equate "free will" with "the illusion of free will" accept that, on closer inspection, "free will" is just physics and chemistry.

They disagree with those who take "free will" to be something "beyond" physics and chemistry; something non-physical; something bestowed by God.

So I guess what you are saying then is that when a Christian or Hindu has an illusion of Gods, or an Afterlife that the illusion is just as real as your “free will”?

I think you are using the word "illusion" in a very different sense here. An optical illusion has no point of contact with what you call "the illusion of God". One is physically present on the screen, the other is nowhere to be seen.

So Tricky has a mystical belief in “free will” in exactly the same way as a Scientologist believes that the Earth is actually the Prison planet, of a Master Race of Giant, super-intelligent, technologically advanced, Jumbo Jet flying Aliens??

You'd better ask Tricky but my take is that his version of free will is that it is all physics and chemistry which produces an illusion of free will as real as that coloured square and the different shades of grey.

I have no idea what you are Talking about?

I was talking about the problems inherent in defining the term "free will" as "the illusion of free will". The term "free will" should apply only to the non-physical variety so as to not confuse it with the purely physical "illusion of free will"

Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved?

Probably like the prison walls that control the movements of it's contained prisoner without being conscious.
But perhaps you mean something else.

Think of it in terms of reality – everything is actually a Sea of Energy. The “Matter” is simply patterns, or concentrations of Energy in this sea. Your consciousness is Nothing more than a pattern within this energy. Now how is a pattern of Information stored in Energy, making you more Physical then a computer program minus the “computer”.

I'm not sure if I understand the point you are making here....

?Summary of your preamble: Energy -> Matter (patterns of energy) -> Conciousness (patterns of matter)
?Your question: How is consciousness more physical than a computer program?

Please clarify.

According to Einstein you are a disembodied consciousness.

I don't recall Einstein having any mystical leanings. He was pretty down to earth as I recall. I do not recall him saying that consciousness can be "disembodied" (separated from the pysical body)

1) TLOP controls YOU
2) YOU control a CAR.

In #1 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.
In #2 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.

Explain the contradiction?

In #1, TLOP (simplicity) produces, through evolution, YOU (complexity)
In #2, YOU (complexity) control a CAR (simplicity)

#1 cannot be used as a template for #2

Are you paying attention Billyjoe? The Theory of Evolution is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You are the one who can’t explain evolution.

Are you imputing an input form God into the evolutionary process.........

Tell me Billyjoe – how EXACTLY do charcoal briquettes and warm water turn in to bacteria?

C + H2O -> -> -> complex organic molecules -> -> -> non-living complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -> -> -> transitional complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -. -> -> living complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -> -> -> bacteria.

But "how EXACTLY"?............

There are numerous clues to many possibilities but the final answer awaits us. Perhaps we will never know EXACTLY how it happened but science is our only hope of finding an answer.
Anything else is pure speculation.

Can you perform the life creation experiment? Abiogensis?

Innumerable times.
But it has come off only four times

Yeah … well some Christians assure me that there Bibles are inerrant as well …

Fortunately, science does not claim inerancy.
There are built-in correction mechanisms (such as peer review, repeatability and falsification) which, though not perfect, work most of the time

That’s evolution, and I am all Up with Evolution. Godel and Bayes (both far closer to LD, than to A-Theism) are the guys who have the Math on Evolution. You A-Theists got diddly-squat … but that point aside … you are skirting the issue. The issue isn’t Evolution. The issue is Abiogenesis.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection referred to the evolution of species and did not include abiogensis. But this is not to say that abiogenesis did not occur by evolutionary means.

How does Matter make consciousness.

There are presently numerous clues as to how this could happen but, if the answer lies in the future it will be through science or not at all. If science cannot provide the answer, we will never know. At this point we can simply say we don't know and leave it at that. Or we can speculate - as long as we realize this is just for amusement and that we cannot expect to arrive at Truth in this way.

You see there is ALL kinds of evidence that the reverse can happen, but NONE that Matter makes consciousness you cannot produce ONE scrape of empirical evidence that supports this belief (and spare me Amino Acids! Amino Acids don’t prove ◊◊◊◊!).

There are "ALL kinds if evidence" that consciousness makes matter?

Where the AI computer program that passes the Turing test

Human brains are a million orders of magnitude more complex than the most advanced AI program.

Speak for yourself! [BillyJoe said "the problem with "God" is that we have as big a mystery to be solved as we started with. No progress."]

You call yourself A-Theist, and then act surprised that you have found no evidence for God?.

No one has ever found evidence for the existence of God. The belief in God is based purely on faith. A subjective feeling that God exists leading to an emotional attachment to that belief.

But if you have objective evidence I would like to hear it.

So you gamble on Ceasing to Exist instead??? No ultimate answers is worth staking your life on? Why not be a Theist or Deist purely out of a sense of Optimism?

A belief in God and an Afterlife is not without its costs.
Pascal's Wager has been falsified.

I am not gambling on ceasing to exist.
I see no evidence that I will not cease to exist after I die. The default position is that there is no reason to believe in an Afterlife. Extraordinary claims do not only require evidence, they require extraordinary evidence.

I don't even gamble on the lotto and the evidence is that I have a 1 in a million chance of winning. The evidence is that I will probably never win and therefore I don't buy that lotto ticket. The evidence for an Afterlife is zero so I'm not going to live my life based on that expectation.

Truth = What is believed True based on the information at hand.

Agreed.

MetaTruth = What is True in OmniReality. The highest Truth as perceived from a point “outside” the Universe (i.e. outside the universe = Omniverse) = (metaphorically) What the Goddess Believes

This view sounds to me very subjective.
The only Goddess I believe in is.....No, best not go there!

I say, and I assume you’d agree, that the default position is UNKNOWN. So you go from there, what example do you have (which does not Beg the Question) which demonstrates an ultimately non-beneficial Truth?

As it happens, I have already given my default position.......

The default position is that I do not believe in the existence of something for which there is no supporting evidence.

I do not say that the question of faeries at the bottom of my garden is UNKNOWN, I say there is no evidence for them and therefore I do not believe in their existence (note that I am not saying that I believe that they don't exist - although if push comes to shove.... )

Similarly, I do not say that the question of God and Afterlife is UNKNOWN, I say there is no evidence for them and therefore I do not believe in their existence (again, note that I am not saying that I believe that they don't exist.)

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Soubrette]

I am hooked up to a pulley.
The pulley controls me.

Therefore, I OBEY THE PULLEY!
Therefore, the Pulley is more concious than I am.

No wait, that doesn't make any sense.

I think you would have to be a little bit more sophisticated than that to change Frank's mind

What hooked you up to the pulley?

What makes the pulley work?

Even if it's all electronic - what put the pulley together, what wrote the programme? What pushed the button?

In the end you were controlled by another consciousness in your example, yes?

Sorry you were unsuccessful this time but please try again

A hint: Anything which is manmade is a poor example - because in the end the game, machine, computer are all designed by conscious human beings.

Sou

 

[hammegk]

Errata

Both hammejk and myself have given examples of where the "the truth" would not have been beneficial ...

It might have been jk*****i .. not hammegk at any rate.

 

[Titanpoint]

Re: Errata

It might have been jk*****i .. not hammegk at any rate.

FWIW I don't regard you as a Franko-lite. I think you're being a philosophical gad-fly. We notice your presence but tend to see your intervention as irritating rather than insightful, and tend to want to swat you rather than consider our logic more carefully.

TP

 

[Franko]

FWIW I don't regard you as a Franko-lite. I think you're being a philosophical gad-fly.

… considering 99% of your posts are nothing more then a buzzing noise … I find this quote immensely humorous.

Woo-woo!

We notice your presence but tend to see your intervention as irritating rather than insightful, and tend to want to swat you rather than consider our logic more carefully.

Shouldn’t you be dedicating another thread to me, right about now …?

 

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

Those who equate "free will" with "the illusion of free will" accept that, on closer inspection, "free will" is just physics and chemistry.

They disagree with those who take "free will" to be something "beyond" physics and chemistry; something non-physical; something bestowed by God.

The problem is, that it is a lot easier to say that there is no evidence for “God” while you are claiming there is evidence for “free will”.

The fact of the matter, is there is no evidence for “free will”, and Fate is the evidence for “God”.

Franko:
So I guess what you are saying then is that when a Christian or Hindu has an illusion of Gods, or an Afterlife that the illusion is just as real as your “free will”?

Billyjoe:
I think you are using the word "illusion" in a very different sense here. An optical illusion has no point of contact with what you call "the illusion of God". One is physically present on the screen, the other is nowhere to be seen.

TLOP controlling ME in an analogous manner to ME controlling my CAR is far less of an illusion then “free will”, but perhaps that’s just me and 90% of the population? Maybe we are all wrong, and the A-Theists are right?

Perhaps you guys are just looking at a different “screen”?

You'd better ask Tricky but my take is that his version of free will is that it is all physics and chemistry which produces an illusion of free will as real as that coloured square and the different shades of grey.

… Still sounds like you are saying it is okay for an A-Theist to believe in his illusion of “free will”, but not for a Theist to believe his “illusion” of “God”, “Karma”, and the “afterlife”? Are you claiming that the Religion of A-Theism should get a special pass on it’s illusions?

I was talking about the problems inherent in defining the term "free will" as "the illusion of free will". The term "free will" should apply only to the non-physical variety so as to not confuse it with the purely physical "illusion of free will"

Well I’d agree with you there.

I’d even go one step farther, and say it is impossible to define “free will” in logical consistent terms. It is like claiming you can draw a 4-sided triangle. You will note that the terms, “God”, “karma”, and “afterlife” are NOT similarly constrained.

Probably like the prison walls that control the movements of it's contained prisoner without being conscious.
But perhaps you mean something else.

Are you suggesting those “prison walls” magically appeared out of the void?

Didn’t a consciousness build/make/generate them?

Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved? You’ll have to explain what you mean, because all evidence indicates the exact opposite of what you are asserting is TRUE.

Franko:
Think of it in terms of reality – everything is actually a Sea of Energy. The “Matter” is simply patterns, or concentrations of Energy in this sea. Your consciousness is Nothing more than a pattern within this energy. Now how is a pattern of Information stored in Energy, making you more Physical then a computer program minus the “computer”.

Billyjoe:
I'm not sure if I understand the point you are making here....

?Summary of your preamble: Energy -> Matter (patterns of energy) -> Conciousness (patterns of matter)
?Your question: How is consciousness more physical than a computer program?

Please clarify.

I am saying, that all “matter” – everything, which exist, can be reduced to its lowest common denominator – ENERGY.

This Energy is NOT physical in the sense that we normally imagine “Matter”. So if you imagine this reality, then how would consciousness manifest within it?

According to Einstein, we are all essentially disembodied consciousnesses – organized patterns within the energy. TLOP is simply a bigger, more organized pattern within the Energy. The A-Theist-Pseudo-Materialists want to assert that Matter made consciousness, that we are simply self-aware atoms, but the reality is we are more like a computer program. We are information arranged in patterns of Energy. The “matter” is a chimera. It doesn’t really exist in the manner, which A-Theist pretend that it does.

How does self-aware Energy capable of organizing itself lead one to the conclusion that Matter makes consciousness? All the evidence seems to indicate that Consciousness dreams up matter after becoming self-aware.

I don't recall Einstein having any mystical leanings. He was pretty down to earth as I recall. I do not recall him saying that consciousness can be "disembodied" (separated from the pysical body)

What “physical body”? Do you mean the body that is actually just patterns of Energy you are perceiving as a physical body? There is NO “matter”, my Friend. You are made out of Energy.

So some Energy decides to make you. How do you claim that this Energy which made you, is less conscious then your Energy?

Franko:
1) TLOP controls YOU
2) YOU control a CAR.

In #1 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.
In #2 you want to claim YOU has the superior consciousness.

Explain the contradiction?

Billyjoe:
In #1, TLOP (simplicity) produces, through evolution, YOU (complexity)
In #2, YOU (complexity) control a CAR (simplicity)

#1 cannot be used as a template for #2

Say WHAT!?! That is some serious question begging Billyjoe! So TLOP is less conscious because you say so? TLOP controls your every move cradle to grave, in fact, TLOP controls YOU a hell of a lot more then YOU control your CAR.

So once again, why is it that you believe YOU are a superior conscious than your CAR, but TLOP which controls you analogous to the way YOU control a CAR is also less conscious then YOU?

You haven’t explained Your contradiction at all! You have simply restated it.

1) TLOP controls YOU (YOU Superior)
2) YOU control a CAR. (YOU Superior)

Just like EVERY A-Theist I talk to. They ALWAYS claim to be Superior! Can’t explain why they believe this, but they just are.

Are you imputing an input form God into the evolutionary process.........

What makes you believe that You Evolve, but God does not?

Franko:
Tell me Billyjoe – how EXACTLY do charcoal briquettes and warm water turn in to bacteria?

Billyjoe:
C + H2O -> -> -> complex organic molecules -> -> -> non-living complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -> -> -> transitional complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -. -> -> living complex aggregates of complex organic molecules -> -> -> bacteria.

But "how EXACTLY"?............

There are numerous clues to many possibilities but the final answer awaits us. Perhaps we will never know EXACTLY how it happened but science is our only hope of finding an answer.
Anything else is pure speculation.

A-Theism of the Gaps. Until and Unless you can demonstrate non-living matter being transformed into a living state, then you have no evidence that Matter makes consciousness. We have all kinds of examples of the reverse however.

Essentially you A-Theists are claiming that Machines make Minds.

Whereas, Me and my Theist Friends are claiming that Minds make Machines.

Fortunately, science does not claim inerancy.
There are built-in correction mechanisms (such as peer review, repeatability and falsification) which, though not perfect, work most of the time

You are kidding yourself. Things haven’t changed much from Galileo’s Time, except this time you A-Theists are the bad guys.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection referred to the evolution of species and did not include abiogensis. But this is not to say that abiogenesis did not occur by evolutionary means.

So don’t assume that TLOP is more conscious then you are, but Darwin suddenly implies Abiogenesis? Unless you have some evidence, I’d say that is a serious stretch. Darwin implies change over time, but Darwin has nothing to do with getting something alive out of nothing.

There are presently numerous clues as to how this could happen but, if the answer lies in the future it will be through science or not at all. If science cannot provide the answer, we will never know. At this point we can simply say we don't know and leave it at that. Or we can speculate - as long as we realize this is just for amusement and that we cannot expect to arrive at Truth in this way.

There are presently numerous clues as to how this could happen but, if the answer lies in the future it will be through Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ or not at all. If Jesus Christ cannot provide the answer, we will never know. At this point we can simply say we don't know and leave it at that. Or we can speculate - as long as we realize this is just for amusement and that we cannot expect to arrive at Truth in this way.

That’s what I hear a lot of times when you A-Theist speak …

 

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

The problem is, that it is a lot easier to say that there is no evidence for “God” while you are claiming there is evidenced for “free will”.

The fact of the matter, is there is no evidence for “free will”....

Obviously I'm still not getting my view across

I am not claiming there is evidence for "free will".
I am agreeing with you that there is no evidence for "free will" (the non-physical variety) .
I am claiming, however, that the existence of "the illusion of free will" is evidenced by the finding that it's all just physics and chemistry inside the brain.
Even you, Franko, must have an "illusion of free will". You do feel as if you have "free will" don't you? Surely?

.....and Fate is the evidence for “God”.

I need you to expand on this.
How is Fate evidence of "God"?

… Still sounds like you are saying it is okay for an A-Theist to believe in his illusion of “free will”, but not for a Theist to believe his “illusion” of “God”, “Karma”, and the “afterlife”? Are you claiming that the Religion of A-Theism should get a special pass on it’s illusions?

In my last post I said that you must be using the word "illusion" in a different sense but it seems that you are insisting this is not the case. In that case........

"free will" - there is no evidence that "free will" exists
"illusion of free will" - what we refer to as "free will" is all just physics and chemistry producing an "illusion of free will"

"God" - there is no evidence that "God" exists.
"illusion of God" - what we refer to as "God" is all just physics and chemistry (eg Einstein's God) producing the "illusion of God"

I will not quarrel with that.

Are you suggesting those “prison walls” magically appeared out of the void?
Didn’t a consciousness build/make/generate them?

I asked in my reply to your question "or do you mean something else?" and obviously you did......

Those prison walls are certainly not conscious so my example answers your simple question. But I concede you your point that the walls are the product of consciousness so my example doesn't answer your complex question.

Please excuse my narrow interpretation of your question.

Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved? You’ll have to explain what you mean, because all evidence indicates the exact opposite of what you are asserting is TRUE.

What is this evidence?

How does self-aware Energy capable of organizing itself lead one to the conclusion that Matter makes consciousness? All the evidence seems to indicate that Consciousness dreams up matter after becoming self-aware.

Again, what is this evidence?

What “physical body”? Do you mean the body that is actually just patterns of Energy you are perceiving as a physical body? There is NO “matter”, my Friend. You are made out of Energy.

But then even energy doesn't exist. The positive energy of mass is cancelled by the negative energy of gravity producing zero.
Or perhaps zero splits into mass and gravity so that, if anything at all can be said to exist, it must be mass and gravity (ie physical bodies).

So some Energy decides to make you. How do you claim that this Energy which made you, is less conscious then your Energy?

I am having a real hard time trying to imagine the energy (the energy that made me) being even a little bit conscious let alone more conscious than me.

Say WHAT!?! That is some serious question begging Billyjoe! So TLOP is less conscious because you say so? TLOP controls your every move cradle to grave, in fact, TLOP controls YOU a hell of a lot more then YOU control your CAR.

I am trying to imagine a conscious law, Franko, but I can't do it no matter how hard I try.

What makes you believe that You Evolve, but God does not?

First of all you need to produce evidence that God exists.
But, God evolving? Do you mean that the concept of God evolving through history? No argument here.

A-Theism of the Gaps.

A-theism (or non-theism) does not fill any gaps.
A-theism (or non-theism) simply means not having a belief that God exists because there is no evidence that God exists.

Until and Unless you can demonstrate non-living matter being transformed into a living state, then you have no evidence that Matter makes consciousness. We have all kinds of examples of the reverse however.

For example......

You are kidding yourself. Things haven’t changed much from Galileo’s Time, except this time you A-Theists are the bad guys

Are you saying, then, that Newton, Bohr and Einstein haven't pushed things along? Even just a little bit?
Do I presume, then, that you don't drive a car, watch television or use the internet?
Aren't they all products of scientific progress since Galileo?

So don’t assume that TLOP is more conscious then you are, but Darwin suddenly implies Abiogenesis? Unless you have some evidence, I’d say that is a serious stretch. Darwin implies change over time, but Darwin has nothing to do with getting something alive out of nothing.

Franko, all I was saying is that life could have evolved from non-life. Evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. When I say life "evolved" I am not implying "Darwinian Evolution". I am well aware that Darwinian Evolution refers to evolution of species not evolution of life.

[Quoting BillyJoe but substituting "Jesus" for "science".....]
There are presently numerous clues as to how this could happen but, if the answer lies in the future it will be through Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ or not at all. If Jesus Christ cannot provide the answer, we will never know. At this point we can simply say we don't know and leave it at that. Or we can speculate - as long as we realize this is just for amusement and that we cannot expect to arrive at Truth in this way.

The sentence doesn't work for me but, hey, if you think arriving at answers through science is equivalent to saying "God did it", we are miles apart with a solid brick wall in between.

BillyJoe

 

[CWL]

To elaborate on what BillyJoe is saying (IMHO of course):

Free will (if defined as "the ability to make conscious choices between availble options") is as real as consciousness itself. It is a result and a property of consciousness.

If consciousness can be described as an illusion, then, yes, free will is indeed an illusion as well.

If we accept consciousness as "real" in our everyday life and in our outlook as to the world then free will (as defined above) is also "real".

Saying "I think therefore I am" is just as valid as saying "I think therefore I am able to make conscious choices between available options".

The validity of this cannot be reduced simply by saying "but there are no options". I can have chicken or salad for lunch. I can choose to have the air condition on during the winter or to spend my afterlife (if any) in the abyss (or whatever). That some options may be less pleasant than others does not mean that they do not qualify as options.

"Consciousness" and "free will" must be accepted as true for all practical and/or pragmatic reasons. What point is there in striving to obtain knowledge if we do not accept consciousness as real? What purpose do laws or ethics serve if there is no free will?

 

[Franko]

BillyJoe:

I am not claiming there is evidence for "free will".
I am agreeing with you that there is no evidence for "free will" (the non-physical variety) .
I am claiming, however, that the existence of "the illusion of free will" is evidenced by the finding that it's all just physics and chemistry inside the brain.

Why is it acceptable, in your view, for A-Theists to have an “illusion of “free will””, but unacceptable for other Theists to have their own Religious illusions – like God, Karma, or afterlife?

Even you, Franko, must have an "illusion of free will". You do feel as if you have "free will" don't you? Surely?

Not at all. I am a Fatalist. All that happens to me is the direct result of the Laws of Physics. I would only be kidding myself if I believed otherwise.

[Fate is evidence for God …] I need you to expand on this.
How is Fate evidence of "God"?

There is a reason that the ancients were Fatalists … The Sumerians, The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Israelites … I a way … they understood the Laws of Physics far better than any A-theist.

TLOP controls YOU
YOU control a CAR.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

You want to claim that you are a superior consciousness to BOTH your CAR, and TLOP. This is a serious logical contradiction on your part. No A-Theists seems willing, or able, to explain this contradiction.

"free will" - there is no evidence that "free will" exists
"illusion of free will" - what we refer to as "free will" is all just physics and chemistry producing an "illusion of free will"

Right … it’s an illusion – NOT real. Just like you believe of the Christian God, and the concept of “afterlife”. So if they are ALL illusions, then why is “free willy” okay for you’re a-Theist friends, while God and afterlife are unacceptable?

"God" - there is no evidence that "God" exists.

I lack-o-belief in your claim. Explain why TLOP is less conscious then you, and try to do more then just claim it is so.

"illusion of God" - what we refer to as "God" is all just physics and chemistry (eg Einstein's God) producing the "illusion of God"

I will not quarrel with that.

So a Theists is JUST as justified in believing in “God” as an A-Theist who believes in “free will”?

I hope that is what you are saying, but if I am understanding you correctly, that doesn’t exactly make A-Theism, NOT a Religion.

Franko:
Where are you getting this notion of Non-conscious Superior controlling forces? How can a force which controls you utterly possibly be less conscious then you are? How can it be less evolved? You’ll have to explain what you mean, because all evidence indicates the exact opposite of what you are asserting is TRUE.

BillyJoe:
What is this evidence?

The evidence is ALL around you. When have you EVER seen a single example of a lesser consciousness controlling a superior one as a trend?

Do you remember us talking about Evolution? This is exactly what I meant. Why are humans at the Top of the food chain? Do chickens control the chicken farmer, or does the chicken farmer control the chickens? Do you tend to control your young children more then they control you? Who tells who what to eat more often? Who tells who what they can watch on TV, or when to go to bed?

Can you provide ONE single example of a lesser consciousness controlling a superior one?

Franko:
How does self-aware Energy capable of organizing itself lead one to the conclusion that Matter makes consciousness? All the evidence seems to indicate that Consciousness dreams up matter after becoming self-aware.

Billyjoe:
Again, what is this evidence?

Is this really that difficult for you to grasp, My Friend? Take a look around you … what do you see? It isn’t what it appears. Everything you see is just Energy.

It is consciousness which perceives the Energy as more than it is. Consciousness makes the Energy more than it is. It Elaborates, it creates, it uses its imagination. Energy (“matter”) couldn’t do this on its own. It doesn’t have the ability to evolve. Your mind perceives patterns in Energy, and it interprets them into a story which makes sense to you, yourself.

But those patterns did not appear magically or randomly (same difference) they were all created by consciousness. Without consciousness there are no patterns.

[You are made of Energy …] But then even energy doesn't exist. The positive energy of mass is cancelled by the negative energy of gravity producing zero.

The energy doesn’t exist in the same way your D&D character isn’t really YOU. Your physical body, like your D&D character is simply an elaboration of the real you. Your Graviton, your particle.

Or perhaps zero splits into mass and gravity so that, if anything at all can be said to exist, it must be mass and gravity (ie physical bodies).

Mass and Gravity do exist in reality, but not in the manner believed by A-Theist-Pseudo-Materialist. The A-Theists don’t know the first thing about the Laws of Physics, and they have no idea what real “matter” is. They’ve never ever perceived it, at least not that they can remember.

I am having a real hard time trying to imagine the energy (the energy that made me) being even a little bit conscious let alone more conscious than me.

You are made of Energy, and yet you are conscious. Other people are made of Energy and they are conscious. What makes you believe that the original Energy which made you TLOP, is less conscious then you?

That is kind of like two computer programs getting together inside the computer memory, and one of the programs (You) starts telling the other that there is NO EVIDENCE for the PROGAMMER, and that in all likelihood the computer and us programs just spontaneously and randomly appeared out of the void. No Programmer was required to write our code.

If you believe that programs magically appear/write themselves is a better explanation then the mundane truth (computer programmers write computer programs), then I can understand why you believe A-Theism is more reasonable then Deism or Theism.

I am trying to imagine a conscious law, Franko, but I can't do it no matter how hard I try.

What’s so hard to imagine?

You obey The Laws of Physics.
Your Car obeys the Laws of YOU.

A-theism (or non-theism) does not fill any gaps.
A-theism (or non-theism) simply means not having a belief that God exists because there is no evidence that God exists.

TLOP controls YOU
YOU control a CAR.

If there is no evidence for God, then explain why you believe that you are more conscious then your CAR, but TLOP is NOT more conscious then YOU.

You are simply claiming to be superior to everything, but that creates a contradiction. Explain the contradiction. Otherwise, it simply looks like your lack of evidence is explained by arrogance. There is NO GOD, because nothing could possibly be superior to YOU.

all I was saying is that life could have evolved from non-life. Evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. When I say life "evolved" I am not implying "Darwinian Evolution". I am well aware that Darwinian Evolution refers to evolution of species not evolution of life.

There’s you’re A-Theism of the gaps I was talking about. Darwin says NOTHING about Abiogenesis, yet you A-Theists ALWAYS bring up Darwin as an argument for Abiogenesis.

The sentence doesn't work for me but, hey, if you think arriving at answers through science is equivalent to saying "God did it", we are miles apart with a solid brick wall in between.

You are the one making “science” equivalent to “God”. I am simply pointing out that this is what you are doing …

 

[CWL]

One could proceed to ask questions such as...

Franko, can you not see the difference between yourself and a car?

...but I am beginning to feel that it is rather pointless.

Franko, don't you ever get tired of thinking the same old things, of constantly repeating the same old dogma to yourself?

 

[Franko]

What's your point CWL?

Can you explain the contradiction or NOT?

If NOT, then please run along and let the grown-ups talk in peace.

 

[BillyJoe]

CML,

Free will (if defined as "the ability to make conscious choices between availble options") is as real as consciousness itself. It is a result and a property of consciousness.

The presumption of "free will" (properly defined) is that there is something beyond physics and chemistry.

Free will is not real.
Free will only seems to be real.
Free will is an illusion.
The illusion of free will, however, is real.

The presumption of the "illusion of free will" is that there is nothing beyond physics and chemistry.

Saying "I think therefore I am" is just as valid as saying "I think therefore I am able to make conscious choices between available options".

Descartes statement "I think therefore I am" is not valid.

Descartes was the perfect materialist until he started thinking about thinking. He thought that because he could imagine thinking without a physical body that this was actually possible. But imagining something does not mean that thing is possible.

This was the genesis of Descartes statement "I think therefore I am" and it is not valid.

"Consciousness" and "free will" must be accepted as true for all practical and/or pragmatic reasons. What point is there in striving to obtain knowledge if we do not accept consciousness as real? What purpose do laws or ethics serve if there is no free will?

What you are saying is that we act as if "free will" is real. We certainly do. And why not? The "illusion of free will" is so real that we really do seem to have "free will". It's not a problem provided we remember that deep down it's all just physics and chemistry.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[ImpyTimpy]

If I remember correctly, Descartes statement came about when he began to question his own existence - that is how do *I* know that *I* am really here and this isn't an illusion.

The answer was "I think therefore I am".

CML,

[snip]
Descartes statement "I think therefore I am" is not valid.

Descartes was the perfect materialist until he started thinking about thinking. He thought that because he could imagine thinking without a physical body that this was actually possible. But imagining something does not mean that thing is possible.

This was the genesis of Descartes statement "I think therefore I am" and it is not valid.

[snip]

 

[Aoidoi]

If I remember correctly, Descartes statement came about when he began to question his own existence - that is how do *I* know that *I* am really here and this isn't an illusion.

The answer was "I think therefore I am".

My understanding is that Descartes was trying to develop a rational basis for philosophy, and had the problem of determining where to start. "I think therefore I am" was his widely quoted solution.

Personally, I accept the concept as true simply because to believe otherwise leads nowhere (solipsism or nihilism). I'm a pragmatist, if a philosophical road leads nowhere then it is only of passing interest. Which is what I find these threads to be.

(besides, I have time to kill in between resets of equipment)

I had a friend in college who rejected the entirety of philosophy on the basis of it's uselessness. At the time I tried to argue her out of it, but let's just say I'm glad she didn't have this thread to use as ammunition for her side.

 

[CWL]

What you are saying is that we act as if "free will" is real. We certainly do. And why not? The "illusion of free will" is so real that we really do seem to have "free will". It's not a problem provided we remember that deep down it's all just physics and chemistry.

regards,
BillyJoe

BillyJoe,

We are in complete agreement. However what I am saying is not only that we act as if "free will" is real, but that for all practical reasons we must do so. If we want a functional society and if we want concepts such as ethics and laws to have any meaning, that is.

 

[CWL]

What's your point CWL?

Can you explain the contradiction or NOT?

If NOT, then please run along and let the grown-ups talk in peace.

If you read what BillyJoe is saying you will realize that there is no contradiction.

As to your "grown-up" comment (which of course does not merit any response - but I guess I am not grown up enough to resist) It seems to me that certain people are neither grown-up nor are they "talking".

I am sorry Franko, but it has become painfully obvious to me that you are stuck within your own dogmatic frame. You are not interested in debating. Instead you hold sermons and lecture without listening to others. It is a sad thing to see intellectual capacity wasted in such a way.

Once again, to claim that one holds "the Truth" without being able to explain it does not increase one's credibility.