Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Perception requires the gathering of information so it can be perceived

You're still going around in circles.

[torridon]

my correction:
Perception requires the gathering of information so it can be perceived

eerm, that made no difference, the concept is still circular.  What you are claiming here is that perception consists of gathering of information so that it can be perceived which requires the gathering of information so that it can be perceived which requires the gathering of information so that it can be perceived .......

This is the sort of nonsense you end up in if you define something in terms of itself, as in 'perception requires a perceiver'.  The way out of such infinite loops to try to understand things face on without recourse to such evasions and deferrals.  Perception consists of that gathering of information, the procurement and processing of it, not in the perception of it,

[Enki]

Being convulsed by uncontrollable reactions is not the same as human sleepwalking.  Humans who sleepwalk are still in control of balance and are aware of sighted objects.

And this:

https://www.sleepandhealth.com/do-animals-have-sleep-disorders/

[Alan Burns]

eerm, that made no difference, the concept is still circular.  What you are claiming here is that perception consists of gathering of information so that it can be perceived which requires the gathering of information so that it can be perceived which requires the gathering of information so that it can be perceived .......

This is the sort of nonsense you end up in if you define something in terms of itself, as in 'perception requires a perceiver'.  The way out of such infinite loops to try to understand things face on without recourse to such evasions and deferrals.  Perception consists of that gathering of information, the procurement and processing of it, not in the perception of it,

Sorry but processing information is not perception.
Computers process information.
Humans perceive what has been processed.

[ippy]

my correction:
Perception requires the gathering of information so it can be perceived

Now's the time to stop diging Alan.

Necessarily good wishes Alan, ippy

[torridon]

Oh dear, Alan. By your own weird standards, you've just suggested that dogs can have their own conscious perception turned off too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BgjH_CtIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-0dzKH1Rfs

Really neat vids Enki.  I'll put money on it that Alan won't see the significance of them 

[torridon]

Sorry but processing information is not perception.
Computers process information.
Humans perceive what has been processed.

All that preprocessing takes time, of course, which is why conscious perception is subject to a time lag. Presumably this will be the same for all creatures.

[torridon]

Being convulsed by uncontrollable reactions is not the same as human sleepwalking.  Humans who sleepwalk are still in control of balance and are aware of sighted objects.

The dog in the video was not having a fit, it was dreaming, that is the evident conclusion to draw.  So if non human animals 'just react', in a programmed way, what was this dog reacting to ? 

Dreaming is a form of conscious experience that happens during sleep; it can be quite random because it is not seeded or informed by data coming in from the senses.  The dog's dreams were entirely internal, within its own doggy mind, born of its own internal imagination.  This flies in the face of your mantra that animals 'just react'.  That dogs dream is evidence that dogs have conscious experience.

[Alan Burns]

All that preprocessing takes time, of course, which is why conscious perception is subject to a time lag. Presumably this will be the same for all creatures.

But processing or pre processing information does not define perception.  The processed information is what we become aware of after the processing takes place.

[Alan Burns]

The dog in the video was not having a fit, it was dreaming, that is the evident conclusion to draw.  So if non human animals 'just react', in a programmed way, what was this dog reacting to ? 

Dreaming is a form of conscious experience that happens during sleep; it can be quite random because it is not seeded or informed by data coming in from the senses.  The dog's dreams were entirely internal, within its own doggy mind, born of its own internal imagination.  This flies in the face of your mantra that animals 'just react'.  That dogs dream is evidence that dogs have conscious experience.

I can't see how you can presume to know what is going on in a dog's mind by observing external reactions.  My own pet dog used to do little barks during sleep sometimes.  It may have looked like it was dreaming, but that is just trying to equate the dog's behaviour with our own internal human experiences.  Even if it turns out that dogs have some form of self awareness, it does lead to the conclusion that self awareness is a material property.  Dogs are still part of God's creation.

[Gordon]

But processing or pre processing information does not define perception.  The processed information is what we become aware of after the processing takes place.

Might the 'awareness' just be one element of the overall information processing functions of our brains?

All you are attempting to do here is very obviously contrive a spurious gap in our psychology/neurology in order for you to insert your 'soul/god' idea - that you (or anybody else) doesn't fully understand consciousness and/or perception requires just a simple 'don't know, will await new knowledge' whereas you are going down the incredulity route of 'don't know, therefore soul/god'.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Might the 'awareness' just be one element of the overall information processing functions of our brains?

All you are attempting to do here is very obviously contrive a spurious gap in our psychology/neurology in order for you to insert your 'soul/god' idea - that you (or anybody else) doesn't fully understand consciousness and/or perception requires just a simple 'don't know, will await new knowledge' whereas you are going down the incredulity route of 'don't know, therefore soul/god'.

There is no spurious gap. There is the hard problem of consciousness turdpolished away by reductionists and their fellow travellers.

[torridon]

But processing or pre processing information does not define perception.  The processed information is what we become aware of after the processing takes place.

To a degree that is right, and this is why we suffer consciousness lag.  Conscious perception is the end result of all that preconscious processing and that takes time. We are not normally privvy to preconscious mind states.  What we take to be real time direct experience is in reality no such thing, it is more like the director's final cut and all the intermediate cuts resulting from the back and forth between amygdala, thalamus, primary visual cortex etc, these are all forgotten.  Our awareness is the constructed refined end product of all that.

[torridon]

I can't see how you can presume to know what is going on in a dog's mind by observing external reactions....  My own pet dog used to do little barks during sleep sometimes.  It may have looked like it was dreaming, but that is just trying to equate the dog's behaviour with our own internal human experiences.  Even if it turns out that dogs have some form of self awareness, it does lead to the conclusion that self awareness is a material property.

I can't presume to know what is going on in my wife's mind either; I can only infer based on observed behaviours.  When my wife barks at me, I infer that she is angry, ditto with my dog.  There is the problem of solipsism, which we cannot currently overcome, so we draw the most reasonable conclusions based on observation and experience.  So if my dog looks to be in pain, I infer that it is in pain.  If my dog appears to having a dream, I infer that it is having a dream.

Dogs are still part of God's creation.

Assertion, of course.  You'd need to demonstrate some justification for the claim of the existence of a creator god to be taken seriously.  We're not going to take such grand claims just on someone's say so.

[Alan Burns]

To a degree that is right, and this is why we suffer consciousness lag.  Conscious perception is the end result of all that preconscious processing and that takes time. We are not normally privvy to preconscious mind states.  What we take to be real time direct experience is in reality no such thing, it is more like the director's final cut and all the intermediate cuts resulting from the back and forth between amygdala, thalamus, primary visual cortex etc, these are all forgotten.  Our awareness is the constructed refined end product of all that.

But you still need something to become aware of this constructed refined end product.

[torridon]

But you still need something to become aware of this constructed refined end product.

Awareness is the constructed refined end product. 

If there was some anterior entity trying to perceive that end product, then it would need its own perceptual system with which to perceive the end product.

[Alan Burns]

Might the 'awareness' just be one element of the overall information processing functions of our brains?

All you are attempting to do here is very obviously contrive a spurious gap in our psychology/neurology in order for you to insert your 'soul/god' idea - that you (or anybody else) doesn't fully understand consciousness and/or perception requires just a simple 'don't know, will await new knowledge' whereas you are going down the incredulity route of 'don't know, therefore soul/god'.

It is not so much a gap as to be an unbreachable chasm.  Perception requires an end recipient of information which is simply not possible to construct with material elements, because no matter how complex the material construction is, it can only ever produce reactions.  There is nothing in there which can perceive.

[Alan Burns]

Awareness is the constructed refined end product. 

If there was some anterior entity try to perceive that end product, then it would need its own perceptual system with which to perceive the end product.

The end product of any material process can be nothing else but just a re arrangement of material elements.  This can in no way be described as perception.  The conscious perceiver of the end product does not need another perceiver - why would it?

[Gordon]

It is not so much a gap as to be an unbreachable chasm.  Perception requires an end recipient of information which is simply not possible to construct with material elements, because no matter how complex the material construction is, it can only ever produce reactions.  There is nothing in there which can perceive.

Your personal incredulity is clearly getting the better of you, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Your personal incredulity is clearly getting the better of you, Alan.

It is not personal incredulity - just a pointing out of physical impossibility.

[BeRational]

It is not personal incredulity - just a pointing out of physical impossibility.

You need to demonstrate that it is impossible, not just assert it.

I can just say it is possible, and your argument vanishes.

[wigginhall]

I see Alan is still stuck in the Leibniz mill.   Lots of gears and levers, but no spirit.   To think this, you have ignore tons of cognitive neuroscience, but then Alan is good at this.  Think of Nelson with his blind eye.

If the brain can generate experience, it all comes tumbling down. 

[torridon]

The end product of any material process can be nothing else but just a re arrangement of material elements.  This can in no way be described as perception.  The conscious perceiver of the end product does not need another perceiver - why would it?

So when an eagle is watching a rabbit scurrying about on the ground from 2000 feet in the air, what is it in the eagle that is the end-perceiver, the end-recipient, of all that preprocessed visual information ? What is it in the eagle that is having subjective visual experience ?

[Alan Burns]

I see Alan is still stuck in the Leibniz mill.   Lots of gears and levers, but no spirit.   To think this, you have ignore tons of cognitive neuroscience, but then Alan is good at this.  Think of Nelson with his blind eye.

If the brain can generate experience, it all comes tumbling down.

The brain generates physical reactions.  To perceive this as an experience requires a conscious perceiver of these reactions.

And the tons of cognitive neuroscience still does not explain the hard problem of consciousness.

[Alan Burns]

So when an eagle is watching a rabbit scurrying about on the ground from 2000 feet in the air, what is it in the eagle that is the end-perceiver, the end-recipient, of all that preprocessed visual information ? What is it in the eagle that is having subjective visual experience ?

All your external observations of the eagle can be explained by information processing, (apart from your own conscious perception of it).  Any conscious awareness of what is going on requires a conscious perceiver of information.  Information processing is not conscious perception.