Dilemma of intelligent design and free will

[Bahman]

I don’t know how you can possibly believe that. “Consciousness cannot come into existence”? It can and does every day as a new person is conceived and develops in the womb. What starts out as a simple 1 celled being develops a brain, then a mind, then consciousness. You doubt that? Then where did your consciousness come from?

Consciousness didn’t come from anywhere. It was there in any stage of my growth and it was necessary. I just couldn’t make any memory of what was happening to me. You in fact have a problem with the concept of consciousness since you are assuming that consciousness is the result of neurological processes which is not. How consciousness could be real as a separate thing if it is outcome of something else, and how it could affect anything at all if it is the result of something.

*Both *creation *and *evolution are false? Then where did you come from?

We are manifestation of consciousness.

Paradoxes are by nature unresolvable. You say in your example that the first state must disappear before the second state can appear, which on it’s face is true. But in the real world things change from one state to another all the time. Cold water becomes hot and turns into steam. Small seeds grow into tall plants. Humans grow from zygots to old men. How does this happen in your philosophy?

With presence of consciousness as I stated.

 

[Bahman]

Why?

Because of the way I defined infrastructure. Infrastructure is related to minimal set of prepositions which define the system and you cannot do that with free will.

I think you’re ignoring the fact that with free will, one of the of the (name removed by moderator)uts (the will) is not fixed by the content of the others.

That I call it consciousness and it is very important factor and it is not an (name removed by moderator)ut to free will but I like your analogy. All (name removed by moderator)uts are delivered to consciousness for the final step which is decision making. Free will in fact is the process in which we make consciouses decision given (name removed by moderator)ut.

Since free will is an non-material attribute, any claims made in the name of science are simply opinions that are not based in science.

I am a physicist and I have a problem to define matter, so I don’t understand what non-material thing is. To me, physical reality is not the whole reality and scientific method cannot completely answer all aspect of physical reality as well since the whole always is bigger than its constitutes and everything is connected. The body of science, scientific theories, is not static but dynamic hence it is acceptable as an approach which can explain the reality better and better but will never manage to provide the whole picture.

Which is why free will and AI cannot be equated.

Exactly.

 

[Bahman]

Is that indistinguishable from the assertion that the (name removed by moderator)uts (and their role in the function) simply aren’t fully known? Not ‘fully knowable’, mind you, just not currently ‘fully known’.

We can assume that the (name removed by moderator)uts could be fully known for the sake of argument. For a free being the (name removed by moderator)uts has influence on the output but it never uniquely determine the output as It was stated.

But that’s precisely what I’m asserting! If we might describe what these ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’ are, vis-a-vis the person, we could predict his choices! Note that ‘free will’ doesn’t imply ‘lack of predictabilty’, but merely that the person is free to make this choice himself. ‘Lack of predictability’ is merely an assertion that we don’t fully know all the salient factors that go into his decision.

No, we cannot predict the behavior of a person even if we can find all (name removed by moderator)uts since the (name removed by moderator)uts just have an influence on the decision and doesn’t uniquely determine the outcome.

Can God ‘know’?

A God who is conscious and knows, no.

Brilliant! I think you truly get it!

Thanks.

We may not have access to all the (name removed by moderator)uts, but that does not imply that the (name removed by moderator)uts do not exist (or may not be known).

We might not have sufficient knowledge to posit laws, but that does not imply that the knowledge does not exist or cannot be understood. It’s merely a case of who has this knowledge… (hint: it’s God. )

What I am arguing is that the knowledge is utility of consciousness hence a conscious being including God cannot know the outcome assuming that the all (name removed by moderator)uts are known since consciousness can intervene in internal state of a person, yet we cannot know how.

Great: so, experientially, we deduce knowledge of ‘bacon double cheeseburger’ through the experience of a bacon double cheeseburger.

Yes.

Here’s where you run into problems. I deduce knowledge of ‘bacon double cheeseburger’ through my experience of it. Why, then, do you assert that my experience of my consciousness does not allow me to assert knowledge of my own consciousness?

How did you make your experience? Through consciousness. Everything including our thoughts and feeling is objective to consciousness.

The fact that semantic meaning does not imply awareness does not prove that awareness does not exist.

I agree.

 

[Gorgias]

We can assume that the (name removed by moderator)uts could be fully known for the sake of argument. For a free being the (name removed by moderator)uts has influence on the output but it never uniquely determine the output as It was stated.

I disagree. Unless, of course, you’re asserting that a free being cannot fully know why he makes the choices he does…

No, we cannot predict the behavior of a person even if we can find all (name removed by moderator)uts since the (name removed by moderator)uts just have an influence on the decision and doesn’t uniquely determine the outcome.

Be careful… you’ve just shifted, again, from ‘free will’ to ‘act’.

We’re arguing ‘free will’ here, which is a question of ‘decision’ and not ‘outcome’.

A God who is conscious and knows, no.

This is simply a generic question: can God ‘know’?

Thanks.

Don’t be so quick to thank me: I’m asserting that you’ve reached the necessary level of knowledge to dissuade you from your questions…

What I am arguing is that the knowledge is utility of consciousness hence a conscious being including God cannot know the outcome assuming that the all (name removed by moderator)uts are known since consciousness can intervene in internal state of a person, yet we cannot know how.

Again, you’re hamstringing yourself. Yes, “we”, who are observers, “cannot know how… consciousness can intervene in [the] internal state of a person.” Yet, that does not imply that the person cannot know, and even less does it imply that God cannot know.

How did you make your experience? Through consciousness. Everything including our thoughts and feeling is objective to consciousness.

I think not. Animals – even plants – ‘experience’ things. That does not imply consciousness. Therefore, sensory experience does not imply consciousness. Our ‘thoughts’ and ‘feelings’ are different matters… but they aren’t germaine to our discussion, are they? Our consciousness (by which I understand to mean our knowledge of self) is part of the equation, but is it relevant to the discussion that experience leads to knowledge? I think not.

 

[hasantas]

Our discussion was not about what we know that God could not know. Our discussion was based on the fact that knowledge is just a utility of consciousness and not more, meaning that it is impossible to construct the knowledge to know consciousness with. Hence, conscious being cannot be created since the related knowledge cannot be accumulated.

Human have many moral senses: mind, life, conscious, imaginative, hearing, view, comprehension, heart, soul etc.

The intelligent design is raher for material structure of alives and matter. Example human’s body is an intelligent design which cannot be by chances or by unconscious physical laws. And all matter were created.

But for moral senses it is a little different. Moral senses is not created but the moral senses are manifestation of attributes of God. To illustrate and sample: The light of sun reflect on the mirrors and the reflection contain and refer the features of sun’s light.

I mean human’s life is not utiliy of energy and all moral senses are like that. Our senses are reflection and manifestation of eternal attributes of God but ours are temporary.

So free will is not a designed machine which work systematic. How God has eternal free will and can make choices with that just like that God give free will potential sense to work. Otherwise it would be supposed that God is unjust but God is exactly justful.

And consciousness being can be created with moral senses which were given by God.

 

[Bahman]

I disagree. Unless, of course, you’re asserting that a free being cannot fully know why he makes the choices he does…

You are correct and I agree with you.

Be careful… you’ve just shifted, again, from ‘free will’ to ‘act’.

Once a person has free will then s/he can perform free act and vice versa. Unless you argue otherwise.

We’re arguing ‘free will’ here, which is a question of ‘decision’ and not ‘outcome’.

Decision defines outcome and outcome informs about decision, unless a person makes twisted decision. But lets put that aside for sake of simplicity.

This is simply a generic question: can God ‘know’?

Only if consciousness is objective to God. Yet consciousness is defined as the ability to experience and affect mental states (my definition) hence God cannot know.

Don’t be so quick to thank me: I’m asserting that you’ve reached the necessary level of knowledge to dissuade you from your questions…

Thanks anyway.

Again, you’re hamstringing yourself. Yes, “we”, who are observers, “cannot know how… consciousness can intervene in [the] internal state of a person.” Yet, that does not imply that the person cannot know, and even less does it imply that God cannot know.

Well, yes if consciousness can be objective to God, which is impossible.

I think not. Animals – even plants – ‘experience’ things. That does not imply consciousness.

I disagree, experience is prior to any change and consciousness is necessary for any experience, hence any change requires a consciousness, including a stone which is falling.

Therefore, sensory experience does not imply consciousness.

Our sensory system grant us a unique awareness.

Our ‘thoughts’ and ‘feelings’ are different matters… but they aren’t germaine to our discussion, are they?

Well, they are part of (name removed by moderator)uts into consciousness in the process of decision making.

Our consciousness (by which I understand to mean our knowledge of self) is part of the equation, but is it relevant to the discussion that experience leads to knowledge? I think not.

Yes. Lets put that aside.

 

[Bahman]

Human have many moral senses: mind, life, conscious, imaginative, hearing, view, comprehension, heart, soul etc.

Consciousness is the base stone that everything else sits on it since by definition is the ability to experience and affect mental states.

The intelligent design is raher for material structure of alives and matter. Example human’s body is an intelligent design which cannot be by chances or by unconscious physical laws. And all matter were created.

That is over simplification which is not working. What we call matter or physical laws are manifestation of consciousness itself.

But for moral senses it is a little different. Moral senses is not created but the moral senses are manifestation of attributes of God. To illustrate and sample: The light of sun reflect on the mirrors and the reflection contain and refer the features of sun’s light.

Moral sense are manifestation of consciousness as well.

I mean human’s life is not utiliy of energy and all moral senses are like that. Our senses are reflection and manifestation of eternal attributes of God but ours are temporary.

No, what we call “I” and all its attribute are manifestation of consciousness only.

So free will is not a designed machine which work systematic. How God has eternal free will and can make choices with that just like that God give free will potential sense to work.

I didn’t say so.

Otherwise it would be supposed that God is unjust but God is exactly justful.

I don’t understand how this is related to subject matter. If you wish you go somewhere we have to focus on subject matter. I am familiar with all things that you said as I was Muslim for a period. Lets focus on this argument:“Our discussion was not about what we know that God could not know. Our discussion was based on the fact that knowledge is just a utility of consciousness and not more, meaning that it is impossible to construct the knowledge to know consciousness with. Hence, conscious being cannot be created since the related knowledge cannot be accumulated.” and see what is your objections to it and if you understand what I said.

And consciousness being can be created with moral senses which were given by God.

Read previous comment.

 

[hasantas]

Consciousness is the base stone that everything else sits on it since by definition is the ability to experience and affect mental states.

That is over simplification which is not working. What we call matter or physical laws are manifestation of consciousness itself.

Moral sense are manifestation of consciousness as well.

No, what we call “I” and all its attribute are manifestation of consciousness only.

I didn’t say so.

I don’t understand how this is related to subject matter. If you wish you go somewhere we have to focus on subject matter. I am familiar with all things that you said as I was Muslim for a period. Lets focus on this argument:“Our discussion was not about what we know that God could not know. Our discussion was based on the fact that knowledge is just a utility of consciousness and not more, meaning that it is impossible to construct the knowledge to know consciousness with. Hence, conscious being cannot be created since the related knowledge cannot be accumulated.” and see what is your objections to it and if you understand what I said.

Read previous comment.

Do you know anybody else who claim that the concious is source of all moral senses? Or is there any theory or thesis which support your assert? And that must be valid!

 

[Bahman]

Do you know anybody else who claim that the concious is source of all moral senses?

Yes, myself.

Or is there any theory or thesis which support your assert?

Experience is the source of moral sense which is not possible without consciousness.

And that must be valid!

And it is valid.

 

[seagal]

Consciousness didn’t come from anywhere. It was there in any stage of my growth and it was necessary.

I see we are talking about 2 separate things. I thought you were talking about how in general consciousness in the human race came to be but you’re talking about a specific person (namely yourself). So let’s leave that for the moment.

We are manifestation of consciousness.

You also said in response to another poster "What we call matter or physical laws are manifestation of consciousness itself. " I’m a little confused. This sounds like you’re saying we don’t really exist materially, that we and the rest of the world are simply products of our own consciousness. Is that your philosophy?

With presence of consciousness as I stated.

Apparently you don’t understand the concept of a paradox.

 

[hasantas]

Yes, myself.

Experience is the source of moral sense which is not possible without consciousness.

And it is valid.

There are billions of people who verify what I say but you are alone. A very clever man cannot be enough as much as valid group of authorities. And experience… Millions of moraly high people experience with moral discovery that every thing is utility and product of God’s power and other attributes of God. The conscious is manifestation of attribute of God but you claim that the mindless and death physical laws can be consciousness… We cannot carry on in that manner.

 

[Bahman]

I see we are talking about 2 separate things. I thought you were talking about how in general consciousness in the human race came to be but you’re talking about a specific person (namely yourself). So let’s leave that for the moment.

No, I was not talking about myself. I am a simple human being like you.

You also said in response to another poster "What we call matter or physical laws are manifestation of consciousness itself. " I’m a little confused. This sounds like you’re saying we don’t really exist materially, that we and the rest of the world are simply products of our own consciousness. Is that your philosophy?

That is correct. To elaborate, we can divide any being including the whole into inside (darkness, such as consciousness, good, beauty, male, freedom, etc) and outside (light, subconsciousness, evil, ugly, female, law, etc) with the boundary between so called persona. This is trinity which is the basic concept of our reality. We, human being have worlds of dream (when we sleep) and reality (when we are awake) with the boundary between so called persona which is very hard to catch. You need to be in a state of sleep and awake to find your real persona. Consciousness rules when we are awake whereas subconsciousness rules when we are asleep. Consider this as a starting and let me know if you want to know further. Feel free to discuss.

Apparently you don’t understand the concept of a paradox.

I know what is the paradox and I solved it. Do you like to discuss it again?

 

[Bahman]

There are billions of people who verify what I say but you are alone. A very clever man cannot be enough as much as valid group of authorities. And experience… Millions of moraly high people experience with moral discovery that every thing is utility and product of God’s power and other attributes of God. The conscious is manifestation of attribute of God but you claim that the mindless and death physical laws can be consciousness… We cannot carry on in that manner.

I will make my way.

By the way, based on what you said that was God who prohibited you to don’t though hot thing but not your experience!?

 

[Gorgias]

You are correct and I agree with you.

OK… so it is possible to know the set of reasons for the decisions a conscious being makes! So, then, it’s only a question of why you’re unhappy that you don’t know what some other conscious being’s reasons are? In other words, the definition hinges on the ability of knowing, and not on any arbitrary being’s ability to know; we’ve shown that this knowledge is possible, so we’re off the hook…

Once a person has free will then s/he can perform free act and vice versa. Unless you argue otherwise.

Yes, I disagree. Requiring the ability to perform an act isn’t part of ‘free will’. We defined ‘free will’ as the ability to make a choice, right? Being able to carry out that decision isn’t a matter of will, then. After all, our governments make laws all the time – does the presence of a law prohibiting a certain action mean that they’ve taken away our free will (or even that they have the power to do so)? Of course not!

So: free will speaks to the activity of our mind; hindering an act does not impinge upon the activity of our mind to will to do something…

Only if consciousness is objective to God. Yet consciousness is defined as the ability to experience and affect mental states (my definition) hence God cannot know.

Isn’t the very definition of God that He is ‘all-knowing’? He knows; or else He isn’t God.

I disagree, experience is prior to any change and consciousness is necessary for any experience, hence any change requires a consciousness, including a stone which is falling.

I’m not sure I agree with this assertion, but it would seem to take us off on a tangent, so unless you object, I’m going to pass on commenting on this…

 

[Bahman]

OK… so it is possible to know the set of reasons for the decisions a conscious being makes! So, then, it’s only a question of why you’re unhappy that you don’t know what some other conscious being’s reasons are? In other words, the definition hinges on the ability of knowing, and not on any arbitrary being’s ability to know; we’ve shown that this knowledge is possible, so we’re off the hook…

I am not unhappy with the fact that we can know some other conscious being’s decision. The issue that I raised was about the existence of design and its conflict wit freedom.

Yes, I disagree. Requiring the ability to perform an act isn’t part of ‘free will’. We defined ‘free will’ as the ability to make a choice, right? Being able to carry out that decision isn’t a matter of will, then. After all, our governments make laws all the time – does the presence of a law prohibiting a certain action mean that they’ve taken away our free will (or even that they have the power to do so)? Of course not!

So: free will speaks to the activity of our mind; hindering an act does not impinge upon the activity of our mind to will to do something…

I see what you mean with free act.

Isn’t the very definition of God that He is ‘all-knowing’? He knows; or else He isn’t God.

Knowledge as I stressed cannot cut and does the job when it come to consciousness.

I’m not sure I agree with this assertion, but it would seem to take us off on a tangent, so unless you object, I’m going to pass on commenting on this…

Well, I agree with you. But hey, do you finally agree that there is a tension between design and freedom?

 

[Gorgias]

I am not unhappy with the fact that we can know some other conscious being’s decision.

Not the decision, but all the reasons (i.e., ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’) that lead to the decision! That’s what’s in play here – you claimed that we could not know these! And now, it’s been demonstrated that these (name removed by moderator)uts can be known! (In other words, we’ve defeated one of your premises…)

The issue that I raised was about the existence of design and its conflict wit freedom.

Right; and now, it’s been demonstrated that free will does not imply that the (name removed by moderator)uts that lead to outputs cannot be known!

Knowledge as I stressed cannot cut and does the job when it come to consciousness.

I’m not sure I understand you, here…

Well, I agree with you. But hey, do you finally agree that there is a tension between design and freedom?

No, I’m still not getting it…

 

[Bahman]

Not the decision, but all the reasons (i.e., ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’) that lead to the decision! That’s what’s in play here – you claimed that we could not know these! And now, it’s been demonstrated that these (name removed by moderator)uts can be known! (In other words, we’ve defeated one of your premises…)

What premise you have defeated?

Right; and now, it’s been demonstrated that free will does not imply that the (name removed by moderator)uts that lead to outputs cannot be known!

But what I am arguing is that free will denies that output can be known given (name removed by moderator)uts.

I’m not sure I understand you, here…

Hemmm. As I mentioned the knowledge is an utility of consciousness hence knowledge cannot tell us what consciousness is. Hence, God with the capacity of knowing cannot know what consciousness is as well.

No, I’m still not getting it…

Ok, so lets look at it again. Could we agree that for a system without free will, (name removed by moderator)uts uniquely define output? Yes. This means that there exist a set of minimal prepositions, so called laws of the system, which defines behavior of the system. These set of laws act as constraints which we call it design. Now, consider a system with free will. Could (name removed by moderator)uts uniquely determine the output? No. Which means that exist not a set of laws which determines the system, hence the system is free, meaning that there exist not any design. I consider reason, feeling, mood as (name removed by moderator)uts. I hope you don’t consider them otherwise.

 

[Gorgias]

What premise you have defeated?

You claimed: “It would be wrong to search for a set of psychological laws since they could not exist if the person is conscious hence design is impossible.” In other words, you are claiming that we cannot fully know the (name removed by moderator)uts that would make it possible to know the outputs of a conscious being.

When I claimed such knowledge is possible, you responded: “It could not because the state of the person is subject to his/her consciousness and (name removed by moderator)ut.”

I am claiming, precisely, that consciousness simply adds additional ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’; therefore, it all boils down to whether these ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’ may be known.

You seem to have a problem with this assertion, since you said: “the (name removed by moderator)uts just have an influence on the decision and doesn’t uniquely determine the outcome.”

In fact, you claimed: “a conscious being … cannot know the outcome assuming that the all (name removed by moderator)uts are known since consciousness can intervene in internal state of a person, yet we cannot know how.”

A couple of important thoughts, here: first, I’m claiming that both “consciousness” and the “internal state of a person” are, in fact, ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’ that fully determine the outputs. Second, if we were to object “but we don’t know all these”, that’s not a claim that they aren’t knowable, just that for a particular observer, these (name removed by moderator)uts aren’t currently known. That’s an important distinction. You’re making a claim about unknowability here.

I responded to your claim that “I disagree. Unless, of course, you’re asserting that a free being cannot fully know why he makes the choices he does…”, to which you responded, “You are correct and I agree with you.”

In other words, you agree that a free being fully knows his (name removed by moderator)uts. Therefore, it is possible to know all the (name removed by moderator)uts and therefore, know the output.

Moreover, I’m claiming that God knows all the (name removed by moderator)uts, too, and therefore, there’s a being external to the conscious being who knows the (name removed by moderator)uts and their outputs. When I asked about whether God can know, you agreed: “Only if consciousness is objective to God.” And yes, I’m claiming that another being’s consciousness is an objective reality to God.

(I do disagree with your caveat: “consciousness is defined as the ability to experience and affect mental states (my definition) hence God cannot know.” This seems to be saying that God is unable to know the subjective experience of one of His creatures, based solely on a definition of what consciousness is to that creature’s perception.)

But what I am arguing is that free will denies that output can be known given (name removed by moderator)uts.

Perhaps that’s what you’re arguing… but you’ve just agreed to my premises which show that these (name removed by moderator)uts can be fully known. Your argument that “output cannot be known” is simply an attempt to argue that no one has access to a full set of (name removed by moderator)uts. We’ve demonstrated that the conscious being has access, and I’m asserting that God does, too: therefore, it would seem that your assertion fails, on the witness of at least these two.

Hemmm. As I mentioned the knowledge is an utility of consciousness hence knowledge cannot tell us what consciousness is.

Knowledge can tell us that consciousness exists, however, and that’s sufficient.

Hence, God with the capacity of knowing cannot know what consciousness is as well.

Poorly proven. You’re leaping from your assertion that, since we cannot ‘know’ our own consciousness, neither can God. It just doesn’t follow.

Ok, so lets look at it again. Could we agree that for a system without free will, (name removed by moderator)uts uniquely define output? Yes. This means that there exist a set of minimal prepositions, so called laws of the system, which defines behavior of the system. These set of laws act as constraints which we call it design. Now, consider a system with free will. Could (name removed by moderator)uts uniquely determine the output? No.

:doh2: We’re back to this?

Which means that exist not a set of laws which determines the system, hence the system is free, meaning that there exist not any design. I consider reason, feeling, mood as (name removed by moderator)uts. I hope you don’t consider them otherwise.

Correct; they’re (name removed by moderator)uts.

Ok… let’s try this: why can (name removed by moderator)uts not determine the output? Perhaps you’re saying that consciousness is an unknowable (name removed by moderator)ut; I claim it is, and you’ve agreed that a conscious being is aware of these ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’. Therefore, the only issue is who knows, not whether knowability is possible.

 

[Bahman]

You claimed: “It would be wrong to search for a set of psychological laws since they could not exist if the person is conscious hence design is impossible.” In other words, you are claiming that we cannot fully know the (name removed by moderator)uts that would make it possible to know the outputs of a conscious being.

This is correct. But we have to sort out one thing before we go further: (name removed by moderator)uts are delivered into consciousness and outcome emerges from consciousness.

When I claimed such knowledge is possible, you responded: “It could not because the state of the person is subject to his/her consciousness and (name removed by moderator)ut.”

This is correct.

I am claiming, precisely, that consciousness simply adds additional ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’; therefore, it all boils down to whether these ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’ may be known.

(name removed by moderator)ut to what? Please accept my apology if there was a misunderstanding.

You seem to have a problem with this assertion, since you said: “the (name removed by moderator)uts just have an influence on the decision and doesn’t uniquely determine the outcome.”

This is correct and I don’t see any problem.

In fact, you claimed: “a conscious being … cannot know the outcome assuming that the all (name removed by moderator)uts are known since consciousness can intervene in internal state of a person, yet we cannot know how.”

This is what I said which is correct. “What I am arguing is that the knowledge is utility of consciousness hence a conscious being including God cannot know the outcome assuming that the all (name removed by moderator)uts are known since consciousness can intervene in internal state of a person, yet we cannot know how.”

A couple of important thoughts, here: first, I’m claiming that both “consciousness” and the “internal state of a person” are, in fact, ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’ that fully determine the outputs.

(name removed by moderator)uts to what?

Second, if we were to object “but we don’t know all these”, that’s not a claim that they aren’t knowable, just that for a particular observer, these (name removed by moderator)uts aren’t currently known. That’s an important distinction. You’re making a claim about unknowability here.

Well, I can agree that every objective thing is knowable. By this I mean the the subject matter should be available for experience.

I responded to your claim that “I disagree. Unless, of course, you’re asserting that a free being cannot fully know why he makes the choices he does…”, to which you responded, “You are correct and I agree with you.”

So that was my fault if I accepted that consciousness can be an (name removed by moderator)ut. I am sorry for diversion in the discussion. Am I pointing to the right place?

In other words, you agree that a free being fully knows his (name removed by moderator)uts. Therefore, it is possible to know all the (name removed by moderator)uts and therefore, know the output.

A being can know all objective beings since s/he can experience them. Consciousness is not subjected to experience hence it is facuality that we experience objective reality with.

Moreover, I’m claiming that God knows all the (name removed by moderator)uts, too, and therefore, there’s a being external to the conscious being who knows the (name removed by moderator)uts and their outputs. When I asked about whether God can know, you agreed: “Only if consciousness is objective to God.” And yes, I’m claiming that another being’s consciousness is an objective reality to God.

I disagree. God is a consciousness being hence consciousness cannot be objective to God. Consciousness cannot be objective since it cannot be the subject of speculation or experience.

(I do disagree with your caveat: “consciousness is defined as the ability to experience and affect mental states (my definition) hence God cannot know.” This seems to be saying that God is unable to know the subjective experience of one of His creatures, based solely on a definition of what consciousness is to that creature’s perception.)

Hence we are manifestation of consciousness itself and creation is impossible. I have a thread for this topic here.

 

[Bahman]

Form the previous post.

Perhaps that’s what you’re arguing… but you’ve just agreed to my premises which show that these (name removed by moderator)uts can be fully known. Your argument that “output cannot be known” is simply an attempt to argue that no one has access to a full set of (name removed by moderator)uts. We’ve demonstrated that the conscious being has access, and I’m asserting that God does, too: therefore, it would seem that your assertion fails, on the witness of at least these two.

I hope it is clear by now. Otherwise I will comment on this issue later.

Knowledge can tell us that consciousness exists, however, and that’s sufficient.

Yes, but indirectly. Consciousness can only be deduced and it cannot be the subject of direct experience, so called objective.

Poorly proven. You’re leaping from your assertion that, since we cannot ‘know’ our own consciousness, neither can God. It just doesn’t follow.

No, what I am claiming is that assuming that God is a consciousness being then he cannot know what consciousness because knowledge is utility of consciousness. I am not saying because we have this problem then God also has it.

:doh2: We’re back to this?

Yes, yes yes.

Correct; they’re (name removed by moderator)uts.

To complete they are (name removed by moderator)ut into consciousness and consciousness cannot be an (name removed by moderator)ut.

Ok… let’s try this: why can (name removed by moderator)uts not determine the output? Perhaps you’re saying that consciousness is an unknowable (name removed by moderator)ut; I claim it is, and you’ve agreed that a conscious being is aware of these ‘(name removed by moderator)uts’. Therefore, the only issue is who knows, not whether knowability is possible.

I think things are clear by now.