"It's wrong to call known, demonstrated and understood function as "correlation". Altering the mechanics alters the function. That is a fundamental fact in psychology and pharmacology."
You are mixing terms. I wasn't calling it "correlation" as in "correlation instead of causation". I agree very much that it is causation. But it is called a "correlary" because it is not the thing itself. If I were to wire pain circuits in a computer, that would not cause it to get a conscious self that could feel pain. In life (at least human life, possibly others), we have consciousness, which is not something that is even explainable in terms of matter and motion. Noone is claiming (or has ever claimed in my knowledge) that there aren't physically processes involved that affect consciousness. It would be absurd to think so. But that does not indicate that the physical processes are equivalent to the conscious processes.
"You should be able to prove this"
It's very simple. If X is the result of physics, then it wasn't the result of choice. Therefore, if all forces influencing X are physical forces, then the influence of X is not determined by any choice. Physics is a combination of law, and, perhaps, random processes. If X is the result of a law, then we could (given adequate knowledge of intial conditions) determine the outcome beforehand. This means that there was no choice in the matter -- the results could be determined before the physical mind was ever involved. Let's say that in addition to law, there is also chance. But chance is not choice, it is simply randomness. Therefore, while you might not be able to predict the outcome, you cannot say that the outcome is the result of choice, because the deviations from the known are entirely random, not selected. Therefore, in order to bring choice into the matter you have to bring in concepts that are outside of physics.
"and give an alternative explanation."
There is no _need_ to do this, provided my original argument is sound. But the answer is simple -- we have a soul. Sorry if that sounds quaint to modern ears, but in all our learning we still have not found anything that can get past this notion.
"Concepts can't exist w/o a physical machine to support their existence. That's axiomatic."
Actually, it's a baseless assumption.
"The word was coined in ~1860-70 meaning literal Gen. and young Earth creation. Just as their is no valid reason to change the definition of the word marriage, theirs none to change the meaning of this word."
Whether you like it or not, the definition of the word "creationist" currently has more meanings than young-earth. The history of the word is irrelevant in light of current usage. Of course, I'm not entirely sure your history of the word is entirely correct, either.
You don't know how to do that. If you did, the being you created would feel pain. It's in the physics.
" In life (at least human life, possibly others), we have consciousness, which is not something that is even explainable in terms of matter and motion."
Maybe you can't, but others can begin to, because they have some knowledge and understanding of the processes.
" Noone is claiming (or has ever claimed in my knowledge) that there aren't physically processes involved that affect consciousness. It would be absurd to think so. But that does not indicate that the physical processes are equivalent to the conscious processes. "
Amazing. There must be some hidden, mysterious supernatural process then. If you want to study it, do so outside the science class, because it's not science.
Re:viewing mind as a machine prohibits the possibility of free will and "You should be able to prove this"
I read your reply, but your logic is bad. It starts out with a simple "if then" statement which is simply a statement of simple physics. You then skipped the machine creation part. That's the part the IDers want folks to get stuck on and forever fix as a mystery. The part where htey proclaim, the Laws of physics are insufficient. That part is important, because as I said before, the nonphysical processes require a physical machine to enable them to exist.
" If X is the result of physics, then it wasn't the result of choice."
This is true with regard to physical forces. that's it. The physical forces are what cause the machine to arise, these forces aren't the driving forces for the machine's intellectual action. The intellectual driving forces are rational thought, and/or emotion.
Emotion is trivial and so is it's companion irrational thought, so I'll drop mention of them for now. Rational thought is the mark of a sentient being. Rationality and consciousness is a funciton of the physical brain. The physics determine that the functions exist, they do not determine the output of the funcitons. The physics provides the functions.
Free will is a funciton of the physical mind. It's driven, not by physical forces, but by the nonphysical forces of rational thought.
Re:give an alternative explanation.
" There is no _need_ to do this, provided my original argument is sound."
It's always essential. We're talking about what "is", so it's fundamental. Don't attempt to wipe away what science knows and understands and then say, it's not necessary to provide an alternative explanation.
"But the answer is simple -- we have a soul."
A soul is a Heavenly body that supports the same funcitons an Earthly body supports. It's the machine based on the physics of Heaven, anologous to the Earthly machine.
Re:"Concepts can't exist w/o a physical machine to support their existence. That's axiomatic."
"Actually, it's a baseless assumption.
By the definition of the word concept, the thing that is a concept has no physical reality of it's own. It must therefore be dependent on a physical entity for it's existence. That's no assumption. It's a conclution, that I see as axiomatic.
" The history of the word is irrelevant in light of current usage. "
The gay marriage folks claim the same thing. Words have definite meaning. I firmly reject the idea that their meaning is, or should be temporal and dependent on some democratic process for present value. I believe God created the universe, but I am definitely not a creationist.
Here's a clue, Matt 12:38-39
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."The sign of Jonah is the Holy Spirit. This statement by God says the physics are sufficient. The Holy Spirit is the bread prayed for when one recites the Lord's Prayer.