Choosing a faith

Consciousness is a physical process. It is only a physical process.Is it not?If so then you say there is a difference between an organically grown and an artificially grown mind that precludes their functioning similarly?What does "really conscious" mean?

Consciousness is so poorly defined, it is hard to say what it is. Some people are saying that consciousness is an illusion. Others are saying that everything (including rocks) are conscious.I don't agree with either of those extremes. However, I do suspect that the so called "problem of consciousness" isn't a real problem at all.If we go along with the panpsychists, then AI systems are already conscious. If we instead go with the illusionists, then humans aren't conscious.We can study and learn more about how we humans interact with the world. But what is thus discovered will probably not be considered an explanation of consciousness. And our AI systems will probably never interact with the world in the same way that we do, if only because we won't want our AI systems to be as irrational as humans can be.

quote:

---

Sure, except that with Matthean priority like Farrer does away with a need for Q.

---

False. The idea that Luke derived the “Q” material from Matthew does away with the need for Q. It is that material - shared between Matthew and Luke but not Mark - and the problems of the idea that Luke used Matthew that create a “need” for Q. Simply arguing that Matthew was written before Mark addresses none of the issues.

quote:

---

It is the general consensus though

---

Is it? Wikipedia states that the earliest attribution is Papias - in the 2nd Century. And, as I recall there is reason to doubt that he was talking of the same work we have.

quote:

---

I'm not sure of your point but I see no need for Q and Streeter's views require it.

---

The point is that the arguments against the Farrer hypothesis are arguments FOR Q. None of them are arguments for Matthean priority. You were implying that the Farrer hypothesis should be rejected BECAUSE there is a need for Q.

quote:

---

Here is a very short summary of the Fourfold Gospel hypothesis by David Alan Black.
I think that rather that working from Streeter and Farrar it makes more sense to start with Black.

---

Streeter and Farrer are rather important in the argument over Q. You cannot assess the “need for Q” without addressing Streeter’s arguments, Nothing Black says in that short summary address any of the arguments.
​

quote:

---

They were written for different audiences. Also Luke was written from Paul's perspective. Luke would have referenced Matthew but wasn't solely dependent on it.

---

That is not an answer to the question. To answer it you have to show that the idea that Matthew was written before Mark is sufficient in itself. Because that is what you claimed.

quote:

---

Papias writes that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. My own view is that it was Matthew himself who did the translating as the church expanded into the diaspora. Luke could have supplemented his book that was largely influence, probably directly, by Paul.

---

This is not an answer for the same reason as the previous one.
(Also any relationship between the Aramiac document referred to by Papias - assuming he was right about that -and the document we call Matthew is speculative.)

quote:

---

The Farrer proposal also has Matthew written prior to Luke and so the responses that are given to counter the Streeter proposal will also hold true for the Matthean priority of the fourfold Gospel theory.

---

Those would be the responses you implicitly rejected as inadequate, and which you explicitly claimed that you did not need. According to you it is enough to assume that Matthew was written before Mark.

quote:

---

Why do you guys have to resort to insult to try and bolster your point.

---

It is not insult. It is fact. What you are really asking us to do is to pretend that obvious falsehoods are reasonable positions. Even when those obvious falsehoods are fabricated strawmen of our own position. No. We are not got to do that. Nor is it in any way reasonable for you to demand that we do.

quote:

---

I have formed my own conclusions about who is correct and having read Black's book twice I believe that he is on the right track.

---

Given that you failed to even understand that the arguments against the Farrer hypothesis were arguments for Q - and other rather clear failures - your evaluation tells us only that you like Black’s conclusions. There is no reason to think that you could even accurately present Black’s arguments, let alone discuss them rationally.

When you have evidence, replication and analysis sufficient to form a consensus, then you have a theory.When you have a little evidence then you can form a hypothesis around which to organize additional study.When you have no evidence then you have religion. Yes, exactly. On the one hand we have evidence of the real world that potentially leads to theory, and on the other hand we have unevidenced belief. No religion has ever proceeded through a scientific process of observation, evidence gathering, analysis, replication, consensus and theory.And no one is asking religion to do this. But sometimes religion makes the claim, "We have evidence just as good as scientific evidence," and in such case the falsity of this claim has to pointed out. It's nothing against religion. It's about not allowing a false claim to stand unchallenged.Of course all religions are encouraged to shout their beliefs from the pulpits, and in such venues they can make whatever claims of evidence they like. But this isn't church, so any requests that EvC give your claims religious deference are not appropriate.
​ It is human nature to respond to the opinions of large constituencies, but belief of one person or a billion would not create an iota of evidence for fire-breathing dragons. There would remain zero evidence.
​ You're missing the central point. Please stop using claims of lack of time and many responses as an excuse to ignore the substantive part of people's arguments, forcing them to say the same thing over and over again. Like now.
​ There are probably few things one can claim absolutely, but is that really to be your claim: "Christianity: no evidence absolutely proving it wrong, therefore probably true." If so then once again you're on the same level of credibility as fire-breathing dragons. This warrants the same comment, but I'll rephrase it: we can never know anything about that with no evidence. For every unevidenced religious claim you want to make there are equally unevidenced non-religious claims. If you claim a divine influence, then I claim an invisible spaghetti monster. Or a herd of microscopic elephants. Or a statistically anomalous scientific event. Or the spirit of sea serpents on Pluto. Or hidden powers of dark matter. Or "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato."
​ But your designer is non-natural , so I was precisely accurate about you believing that the existence of natural processes implies that non-natural processes must also exist. Again, if there is any chain of logic leading from your premise to your conclusion, it is not apparent.--Percy

You're being idiotic and purposefully obtuse. Nothing I say about the current consensus within science is my personal opinion. For example, it is a fact that a scientific consensus has formed around the existence of the Higgs Boson because the statistical data passed the 5-sigma threshold, which means there's only a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the data is leading us astray.Particle studies tend to be statistical, but other realms of science are more direct, for example, that the triple point of H₂O is 32°F at a pressure of .006 atmospheres. You've shifted the discussion to an area where I've made no comment, namely the origin of the laws of the universe. If you've got evidence for the "Let there be light" version, please present it. Until you do the rest of us will continue to seek evidence for what happened.But my actual point, one I apparently have to keep making as you make every effort to shift the conversion or make up alternative interpretations, is that things that happen leave evidence behind of what happened and how they happened. You're claiming that part of the cause of what happened is non-natural, but everywhere we look natural processes account for 100% of what happened. There's no missing 1% into which the divine could fit.
​ I assume this is still about what resulted in the natural processes we observe in the universe today. You have no experience or observations about this, while science continues to gather evidence hoping answers emerge. As far as I know we still cannot answer the question, "Why are these physical laws the laws of our universe and not some other laws?"
​ I wouldn't say it this way because your way of saying it implies certain things that I don't believe are true, but I agree with the sentiments.By the way, notice how long it's taking me to reply. I'm in a bit of a busy period. I'm replying as I have time, and I'm not ignoring a single thing you say. Obviously it can be done.--Percy

You're not being honest with yourself. You don't care about truth. You only care about finding ways to validate what you already believe true.No one else here is propping up their own beliefs. They're seeking to accept the nature of the world as described by what they observe.
​ How so? I don't think you have an inkling of what you just said means.Evolution occurs through the same mundane natural processes we observe going on around us all the time. There is no "infinite regress of processes."
​ Over and over again, the same question. Why can you never say, "Now I know, since I've asked this question before, that your answer is <summarize answer>, but I would go on to argue that <say something that moves the discussion forward>."--Percy

The writings that did survive until today are the testimonies of the early Christian churches of the Jewish diaspora which had never had any contact with Jesus and had no reliable source of information about him. No, that is incorrect, it is pretty much a known fact. What I said was: Aren't the writings we have today from the early Christian churches formed by Paul in the Jewish diaspora? Didn't these churches have no contact with Jesus, since he was already dead by the time Paul founded them? Didn't they therefore have no reliable source of information about him? It doesn't matter how many books Richard Bauckham writes. He has no evidence to contradict what I said. Stop giving us reading assignments. If you think there's evidence in Bauckman's books then its incumbent on you to bring it into the thread. It's not our job to read your references looking for the evidence you claim is there. This is a discussion board, not a jousting competition between links.--Percy

I'm suspecting that GDR is having a serious crisis of faith. He probably started this thread in an attempt to reassure himself, hoping that his doubts would go away.It does not seem to be working.

GDR will never honestly discuss this. The reality destroys the core of his belief system.

quote:

---

I'm suspecting that GDR is having a serious crisis of faith. He probably started this thread in an attempt to reassure himself, hoping that his doubts would go away.

---

He’s been hiding from the truth and making hopeless excuses for years. This isn’t new.

Yes, of course scholarship in the field of Biblical studies continues, but we were talking about eyewitnesses. Nowhere do you say anything about evidence of eyewitnesses. This is so typical. I make a point about one thing, you reply on something entirely different.If you've got anything to say about a changing consensus on eyewitnesses due to new evidence then now would be the time to say it, since that was the topic, and in your own quote of me I'm clearly talking about eyewitnesses. Why do you say that? Do you have any rationale or evidence to support this? Your unevidenced assertion can be ignored in the face of the well argued points made in the Wikipedia article and elsewhere on the Internet. Pretty much. And you're ignoring that the increasing detail with time is a key indicator of myth. So make your case. Merely stating that you disagree carries no weight. Why are you arguing this way? Why do so many of your positions begin and end with, "I disagree."There's an obvious answer, of course. You can't say anything more than, "I disagree," because you have no evidence.
​ I don't want a summary of belief. I want the evidence. Which you don't have. As you've conceded.
​ That's personal belief. A lot of people here have also read Brian Greene and not seen anything that lends support to any of your beliefs.
​ Well, yes, precisely. Aren't we done now?--Percy

Chrystal merchants and universalists aside there is a recognised neurological discipline in our most advanced schools. And, again ... humans. We're tenacious.The discipline, as science does, should recognize the physical/neurochemical structure of what consciousness is by consensus. A body of work will, eventually (1000 years +-?), reveal that structure. That's the plan, anyway. And I think it will bear fruit.When you say AI are you seeing artificial intelligence as artificial consciousness? Are the two equivalent? Is there a difference between intelligence and consciousness?My understandings make room for the two to be equivalent. The sliding scale of smarts (defined how?) is the sliding scale of consciousness (awareness/reasoning).Who knows what the smart guys will find, but I am (semi)confident they will find something. Whatever it turns out to be, will be the guiding principles for the technologists to build into their blueprints.Then the real existential dilemmas begin. Do we build it?

Perhaps it doesn't have a physical/neurochemical structure. Perhaps it has more of a behavioral structure. And we all behave differently. Science is based on systematization. And maybe we are all too different for consciousness to be systematized. My view of AI is that it is a problem half-solved. We have the "artificial" part working. Or, said differently, I'm skeptical of the claims of AI. I see AI systems as neither intelligent nor conscious. What those have in common, is that we are unable to come up with a clear definition of either. So it is hard to day whether they are the same. Some people see them as the same, and some people see them as different.Last month, I did a blog post about intelligence: What is intelligence?I did not mention consciousness in that blog post.

Everything in this universe, which includes biology, is physical/neurochemical structure. Is there something else? What is "behavioral structure"? What is systematize? There are extreme claims from the coocoo nest which no one except a fellow coocoo could accept. Excepting the coocoo, what claims from less nutty sources raise your skepticism?

Edited by AZPaul3, : word

Claims that AI systems are intelligent. Really, they are just dumb computers following programmed rules.