Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But that's the problem. Does a medical checklist equate to consciousness though?

What does that mean? The “medical checklist” identifies when subconscious and conscious activity is happening if that’s what you mean.

...I think we are indebted to Bluehillside for raising the phenomenon of apparent consciousness, for example, in people who can do complex activities when asleep like driving.

I would be surprised if some of the activities of people  wouldn't at least fulfil some of criteria for ''medical'' consciousness.

Of course they do. Sub-consciousness is still a type of consciousness, albeit that it happens in the background usually without us being aware of it.

Such phenomena raise the questions ''Can intelligence resemble consciousness without actually being it... A so called zombie''…

Not really. People operating at a sub-conscious level are still “intelligent”. They may not be reading Proust but decisions are still being made etc, albeit unknowingly.   

… and ''is the subconsciousness really a second consciousness which subliminally and rarely overtly communicates information to what we regard as ''ourselves''.

No, it’s part of a continuum, and the sub-conscious communicates with the conscious whenever we’re awake – in fact it does most of the heavy lifting despite the illusion that for example our eyes tell us most of what’s there rather than our brains blocking in the information.

Try this for example:

“fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghi t pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh?” 

Did you read that consciously by working out on a piece of paper all the anagrams, or did your sub-conscious block that in in the background and then communicate the meaning to the thinking "you"?   

Now I think you will see that none of this is a statement that consciousness IS DEFINATELY NOT physical but we see hard arsed physicalists getting sweaty palms here because it does not confirm their physicalist safe and cosy equation of intelligence equalling consciousness or the even more suspect consciousness equalling a medical and neuroscientific arbitrary checklist of signs. 

Um, none of that is true. There’s no reason to think that consciousness isn’t a material phenomenon, and in any case you’d have all your work ahead of you even to define the non-material, let alone to suggest a method to identify and measure it. Essentially everything we perceive is information – it’s the substrate for stuff we think we perceive. Hence "information is physical".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What does that mean? The “medical checklist” identifies when subconscious and conscious activity is happening if that’s what you mean.

Of course they do. Sub-consciousness is still a type of consciousness, albeit that it happens in the background usually without us being aware of it.

Not really. People operating at a sub-conscious level are still “intelligent”. They may not be reading Proust but decisions are still being made etc, albeit unknowingly.   

No, it’s part of a continuum, and the sub-conscious communicates with the conscious whenever we’re awake – in fact it does most of the heavy lifting despite the illusion that for example our eyes tell us most of what’s there rather than our brains blocking in the information.

Try this for example:

“fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghi t pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh?” 

Did you read that consciously by working out on a piece of paper all the anagrams, or did your sub-conscious block that in in the background and then communicate the meaning to the thinking "you"?   

Um, none of that is true. There’s no reason to think that consciousness isn’t a material phenomenon, and in any case you’d have all your work ahead of you even to define the non-material, let alone to suggest a method to identify and measure it. Essentially everything we perceive is information – it’s the substrate for stuff we think we perceive. Hence "information is physical".

I don't think there was anything particularly controversial about what I put Hillside.
Therefore your response is largely the rantings and ravings of a Vlad Obsession.

[Alan Burns]

Nonsense.  We are able to measure conscious awareness with equipment.  Your soul on the other hand lacks any definition whatsoever, we cannot even detect it never mind measure or evaluate it.  All you are doing is taking something that is hard to understand and slipping some impossible-to-understand magic beliefs into that space.  That is backward.

But we have no equipment capable of measuring or detecting our spiritual properties, only our conscious self.

[Alan Burns]

And if by 'source of awareness' we are to read 'soul' then all creatures with awareness must have souls - no creature will survive long without awareness. Perceptual systems developed in the PreCambrian and are now ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom and humans enjoy awareness as we evolved as part of that great tree of life.

You cannot prove awareness by reactions.  Conscious awareness does not require a reaction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think there was anything particularly controversial about what I put Hillside.
Therefore your response is largely the rantings and ravings of a Vlad Obsession.

What "ranting and raving" would that be?

I merely set you straight on a few points is all. If you think I was wrong about that, explain why.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But we have no equipment capable of measuring or detecting our spiritual properties, only our conscious self.

You have yet to demonstrate that we have "spiritual properties". You need to do that before worrying about whether or not we have the equipment to detect or measure them. 

[torridon]

You cannot prove awareness by reactions.  Conscious awareness does not require a reaction.

Who is talking about proof ?  We talk rather of evidence and the evidence suggests that all animals that have eyes can actually see, and all animals that have ears can actually hear.  Unless you have some strong evidence to suggest otherwise, why would we not consider that creatures that have the apparatus to gather awareness of their surroundings are somehow nonetheless unaware ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

Um, none of that is true. There’s no reason to think that consciousness isn’t a material phenomenon, and in any case you’d have all your work ahead of you even to define the non-material, let alone to suggest a method to identify and measure it. Essentially everything we perceive is information – it’s the substrate for stuff we think we perceive. Hence "information is physical".

I have already suggested that my statements are not definitely against the idea that consciousness is a physical phenomena.
The only threat to you that I can see therefore that would inspire such a rant is fear that even your  ideas of physicalism are suspect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What "ranting and raving" would that be?

I merely set you straight on a few points is all. If you think I was wrong about that, explain why.

I don't think it is up to me to analyse your forum modus operandii. That would be better coming from a friend.

I have already pointed out that Any statement I've made is not controversial or even against the idea of consciousness being a physical phenomena.
Trying to odds that Hillside is merely doctrinaire Physicalism and paranoia on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You cannot prove awareness by reactions.  Conscious awareness does not require a reaction.

But you can demonstrate it with various psychological tests that show many species to have the necessary neural substrates of consciousness and the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviours. It’s not something we can know for sure without being able to be “inside” the mind of a bat or an orang-utan, but the evidence points heavily in that direction.

Perhaps the question when confronted with non-human species that shows every sign of being conscious should be why wouldn’t you think them to be conscious? (Other that is than, "because my religious faith insists on it") 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think it is up to me to analyse your forum modus operandii. That would be better coming from a friend.

My "modus operandii" (sic) is to respond to comments and questions with reason and argument. You should try it. 

I have already pointed out that Any statement I've made is not controversial or even against the idea of consciousness being a physical phenomena.

It's phenomenon, and pointing something out does not thereby make it true. Here for example you asked, ''is the subconsciousness really a second consciousness which subliminally and rarely overtly communicates information?" which I answered to explaining that the subconscious communicates all the time with the conscious - and then I demonstrated it with the jumbled up paragraph (jumbled up-ness being something you of all people should be familiar with) that you just ignored. 

Trying to odds that Hillside is merely doctrinaire Physicalism and paranoia on your part.

This from someone who regularly confuses "antitheist" with "atheist", who introduces "sweaty-palmed physicalists" into the discussion etc? Blimey, pots and kettles come to mind here. If you seriously think I've ever demonstrated the paranoia for which you're notorious though, by all means try to provide an example.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 There’s no reason to think that consciousness isn’t a material phenomenon, and in any case you’d have all your work ahead of you even to define the non-material, let alone to suggest a method to identify and measure it. Essentially everything we perceive is information – it’s the substrate for stuff we think we perceive. Hence "information is physical".

But that if I may say is a top down doctrinaire physicalists approach. It proceeds from a philosophy which is OK but is evidently not standing up even to the modest bottom up approach that Alan is taking.

The usual pattern is all here ''can't proceed with your argument....resort to doctrine.'' We get it that consciousness might be physical, none of us are required to abandon our dualism or theism on the strength of that. The problem though is for you to take on Searles challenge and establish those facts of consciousness not explain it away or confuse it with intelligence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just a word of encouragement to Alan. Keep up your bottom up approach against
the peculiar bouillabaisse of doctrinaire reductionist physicalist skyhookism of Hillside, Torrid Don et al.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 Here for example you asked, ''is the subconsciousness really a second consciousness which subliminally and rarely overtly communicates information?" which I answered to explaining that the subconscious communicates all the time with the conscious .

Then you missed the word ''overtly'' then.
Skim reading can lead you make foolish mistakes like missing a crucial word here.
But as I've said Doctrinare ranting physicalism can do that for a soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But that if I may say is a top down doctrinaire physicalists approach.

You may of course say anything you like, however foolish. It’s actually the opposite of that – a bottom-up approach of starting with evidence and seeing where it leads.

It proceeds from a philosophy which is OK but is evidently not standing up even to the modest bottom up approach that Alan is taking.

You have it backwards. AB is top down – he starts with “soul” (presumably because that’s what his religious dogma tell him) and then tries to jemmy it into the picture.

The usual pattern can't proceed with your argument....resort to doctrine.

Dear god man – think about what you’ve just said! The only doctrine here is "soul", "the bible says, therefore..." etc and the like.

We get it that consciousness might be physical, none of us are required to abandon our dualism or theism on the strength of that.

No-one’s suggesting that you’re required to do anything. What you don’t get to do as AB attempts though is just to make assertions and call them facts.

The problem though is for you to take on Searles challenge and establish those facts of consciousness not explain it away or confuse it with intelligence.

A mistake you made before and have now repeated. If you think there’s a confusion, finally set out what you think it to be.

You must be breaking the heart of your Lord and Master Dennett.

About that paranoia thing you mentioned earlier…

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just a word of encouragement to Alan. Keep up your bottom up approach against
the peculiar bouillabaisse of doctrinaire reductionist physicalist skyhookism of Hillside, Torrid Don et al.

How is it even possible to get "top down" and "bottom up" so utterly arse-backwards?

[ekim]

AB,


Perhaps the question when confronted with non-human species that shows every sign of being conscious should be why wouldn’t you think them to be conscious? (Other that is than, "because my religious faith insists on it")

Another reason might be because Alan is not clear about what he means by 'soul'.  There are a number of occasions when the Bible implies that all living creatures have souls e.g. Gen 1:21, Gen 2:19, Gen 9:10.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No-one’s suggesting that you’re required to do anything.

A demand for methodology IS a suggestion of requirement Hillside. But is only commensurate with a demand for a methodology to establish physicalism.

Your trouble is that having huge gaps in your explanation of consciousness you seem to be attempting to hide them with a sneaky bit of philosophy which is evident in your replies to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


You have it backwards. AB is top down – he starts with “soul”

Yes and you start with ''no reason to take any line but that of philosophical physicalism''. Alan then does a bottom up that's why he is talking the language of science.
I am not talking ''soul'' and yet you are straight into ''No reason to believe in anything other than a physicalist view''. It's all there Hillside.

You are struggling over ''consciousness'' and ''emergence'' Hillside...(You don't seem to get it.).... Not soul.

And if i'm honest ''overt communication'' as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another reason might be because Alan is not clear about what he means by 'soul'.  There are a number of occasions when the Bible implies that all living creatures have souls e.g. Gen 1:21, Gen 2:19, Gen 9:10.

But his opponents show no coherence over consciousness.
For Torrid Don a basic checklist of clinical signs seems to suffice. For Hillside, perhaps something wider.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A demand for methodology IS a suggestion of requirement Hillside.

Oh dear. The “demand” is necessary if you want to make a case for your faith beliefs being true for other people too. You’re not required to provide one though – if you want to remain in the “OK, I offer no means to distinguish my claims from just guessing” corner that’s up to you. 

But is only commensurate with a demand for a methodology to establish physicalism.

First, I see that you’ve finally abandoned your misunderstanding of “philosophical materialism” or whatever it was and instead reverted to “physicalism”. Well done. You still have some way to go to build your straw man though – what you’re actually trying to describe is extreme physicalism.

Second, once you get there though then yes – if anyone ever argued for such a thing then they too would be obliged to provide a method to test the claim if they didn’t want to look foolish as well.

Your trouble is that having huge gaps in your explanation of consciousness you seem to be attempting to hide them with a sneaky bit of philosophy which is evident in your replies to me.

Flat wrong again. We have models from multiple disciplines for consciousness that fit the available data. We also have models from multiple disciplines for gravity that fit the available data. In both cases though there are gaps in the explanations.

Pending further and better particulars however, those models are all we have. You can pop in “soul” or “pixies with very thin strings holding stuff down” respectively to fill the gaps if you want to, but absent any evidence at all for either of them those narratives are epistemically and logically useless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear. The “demand” is necessary if you want to make a case for your faith beliefs being true for other people too. You’re not required to provide one though – if you want to remain in the “OK, I offer no means to distinguish my claims from just guessing” corner that’s up to you. 

First, I see that you’ve finally abandoned your misunderstanding of “philosophical materialism” or whatever it was and instead reverted to “physicalism”. Well done. You still have some way to go to build your straw man though – what you’re actually trying to describe is extreme physicalism.

Second, once you get there though then yes – if anyone ever argued for such a thing then they too would be obliged to provide a method to test the claim if they didn’t want to look foolish as well.

Flat wrong again. We have models from multiple disciplines for consciousness that fit the available data. We also have models from multiple disciplines for gravity that fit the available data. In both cases though there are gaps in the explanations.

Pending further and better particulars however, those models are all we have. You can pop in “soul” or “pixies with very thin strings holding stuff down” respectively to fill the gaps if you want to, but absent any evidence at all for either of them those narratives are epistemically and logically useless.

Look Hillside
This is not about me and Pixies and strings. That is just mug caricature on your part which just titillates the knuckledraggers.

This is about you shoehorning consciousness into your view of universal unconsciousness. You want the word consciousness but it is an embarrassment which your views don't actually allow.

So what to do eh?

Make consciousness equal to intelligence. Make emergence equal to just being a sophisticated version of the previous level of organisation (substratism?) rather than a novel property not found at the previous level(vis your guff about insect communities being ''proto conscious '' and the emergent property predicted by the previous level (Bollocks).Your seeming suggestion that the possibility of an insect colony becoming conscious was dependent on the number of synapses really shows up your confusion over both intelligence and emergence.

Now please own up.... to you, Dennett, Torrid Don and the gang having to go a lot further with consciousness than the patch up job you are offering at the moment.

[floo]

Vlad's master, dear old Satan, must be so proud of his acolyte who is pretending to be a theist. He is doing a great job of dragging the faith through to mire!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad's master, dear old Satan, must be so proud of his acolyte who is pretending to be a theist. He is doing a great job of dragging the faith through to mire!

Antitheism as salvation from Satan?......That's a new one on me.

Are you saying God is the Devil? I think there is a phrase for that belief.

[floo]

Antitheism as salvation from Satan?......That's a new one on me.

Are you saying God is the Devil? I think there is a phrase for that belief.

Maybe they are one and the same.