Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Without a conscious controller, the biological machine becomes a puppet with nothing but nature pulling the strings.

Hyperbole.

Hyperbole that displays for all to see just how deep your misconceptualisation of humans is.

There is no us and them situation between us and nature, that is unwarranted unevidenced fantasy.  We are nature, it is not something separate that is controlling us.

We all do what we want at every moment and I cannot see what would be the value in being free of that principal.  On what other basis would we make choices ?

[Alan Burns]

Perception is a complex phenomenon.  Ask, yourself, what is made of ?  Answer : it is made of reactions, reactions at the neurological level, at cellular level, at molecular level, trillions of them.  Is a house entirely separate from the bricks from which it is made ?  One derives from the other.

So still no scientific definition of what comprises perception.  You are just guessing.

[Roses]

Without a conscious controller, the biological machine becomes a puppet with nothing but nature pulling the strings.


Better to have nature pulling the strings than the fairy tale god, imo.

[BeRational]

So still no scientific definition of what comprises perception.  You are just guessing.

Do you follow the evidence that leads to souls?

If so can you provide the evidence please and not just assertions and guesses?

[Gordon]

So still no scientific definition of what comprises perception.  You are just guessing.

Just as well the build quality of irony meters is so much better these days!

[Sebastian Toe]

Without a conscious controller, the biological machine becomes a puppet with nothing but nature pulling the strings.

Without a controller, the spiritual soul becomes a spiritual puppet with nothing but spiritual nature pulling the spiritual strings.

[Maeght]

Without a conscious controller, the biological machine becomes a puppet with nothing but nature pulling the strings.

And?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All I asked is "what is perception?"

And what I explained was that, if you want to assert various things about what it cannot be (eg, naturalistic) then surely it’s your job to find the answer before building beliefs based on your ignorance of the subject.

By this answer I must assume you can't define perception in scientific terms.
Which is not surprising because scientists have this trouble too.

This is a piece of nonsense you try a lot – you use the word “definition” (wrongly by the way – what you’re trying to say is explanation) and when the answer isn’t specific enough for your needs you dismiss entirely the substantial explanation we do have in favour of a superstitious belief about which you have no “definition”, no explanation, no information, no anything of any kind.   

Oddly though when other phenomena have incomplete explanations (gravity for example) you’re fine with that, presumably because you don’t have to rely on your ignorance of it to justify a superstitious alternative – pixies holding stuff down for example.

Not that you care, but there’s a great deal of scientific investigation into perception that’s given us a lot of explanatory information. Try here to get you started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#Theories_of_perception

Try too David Eagleman's "Incognito - The Secret Lives of the Brain" for a very accessible guide to where you keep going wrong.   

All I asked was "can you not see the profound difference between perception and reaction?"
Are you seriously accusing me of making up the fact that there is a difference between reaction and perception?

Yes, because the difference isn’t what you think it is. Perception is the processing of sensory input into information, which is shaped and mediated be learning, memory etc. All of these are “reactions” at some level – there’s no need to invoke magic just because it looks mysterious to you.   

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Reactions occur whether they are perceived or not.  The perception is entirely separate to the reaction.  It is awareness of a reaction, not the reaction itself.  You seem to be confused between the two.

No, you are. Perception is itself rooted in “reactions” (cause and effect) – ie, the firing signals between neurons of such immense complexity that we (and it seems other species) are self-aware.   

I receive rebuttals from several posters for every post I make, and I would love to have the time to respond in detail to them all.

That’s just not true. You rarely if ever engage openly and honestly with any of the rebuttals that undo you – rather you just ignore them, or respond just with more personal incredulity. Your relentless reliance on logical fallacies for example is regularly explained to you, but never once do you say something like, “OK, I can see now what the argumentum ad consequentiam entails and why it’s a false argument, so in future I won’t use it. Thank you for educating me about that”.

Instead you return to the same mistakes in reasoning over and over again, learning nothing as you go.   

Why is that?

Without a conscious controller, the biological machine becomes a puppet with nothing but nature pulling the strings.

It does no such thing, but even if it did that’s precisely an example of the argmentum ad consequentiam. You might not like the idea of “nature pulling the strings” as you put it, but not liking something tells you nothing at all abut the quality of the argument that leads to that conclusion.

Can you see now why your refusal ever to learn is letting you down so badly?
   

See above

No, let’s not. Any time you’re asked a question that you know falsifies you, you just run away from it no matter how often it’s asked. You told us a while back for example that the strength of your feelings about something must somehow inform the quality of your explanation for it. I asked you over and over again what logical path you think there to be from one to the other but never once did you answer. I even asked you why you wouldn’t answer, but you just ignored that too.

Can you see now why some of us find you to be so dishonest?

So more in hope than expectation, let’s try again shall we:

Can you see that you would perceive a separate "you" doing the choosing in exactly the same way you would perceive an integrated you that's a self-aware naturalistic organism?

And if you can see that the two perceptions would be identical at an experiential level, why then opt for the explanatory model that's relies on magic over the one that relies on reason and evidence?

[Alan Burns]

Without a conscious controller, the biological machine becomes a puppet with nothing but nature pulling the strings.


Better to have nature pulling the strings than the fairy tale god, imo.

God does not control us.
neither does nature.
God has given each one of us control of our own thoughts, words and actions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

God does not control us.
neither does nature.
God has given each one of us control of our own thoughts, words and actions.

We are nature; "God" is just an unqualified assertion.

[torridon]

So still no scientific definition of what comprises perception.  You are just guessing.

Don't be so silly.  The study of perception is not guessing and no more than the study of gravity or photosynthesis is guessing.  Here is the wiki page for starters :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

[wigginhall]

Yes, there is a lot of research into perception.   I cited some above in relation to postdiction, but AB will say this is just a reaction.  I like the comment about guessing, though, well, yes, who would be guessing about souls.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And what I explained was that, if you want to assert various things about what it cannot be (eg, naturalistic) then surely it’s your job to find the answer before building beliefs based on your ignorance of the subject.

This is a piece of nonsense you try a lot – you use the word “definition” (wrongly by the way – what you’re trying to say is explanation) and when the answer isn’t specific enough for your needs you dismiss entirely the substantial explanation we do have in favour of a superstitious belief about which you have no “definition”, no explanation, no information, no anything of any kind.   

Oddly though when other phenomena have incomplete explanations (gravity for example) you’re fine with that, presumably because you don’t have to rely on your ignorance of it to justify a superstitious alternative – pixies holding stuff down for example.

Not that you care, but there’s a great deal of scientific investigation into perception that’s given us a lot of explanatory information. Try here to get you started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception#Theories_of_perception

Try too David Eagleman's "Incognito - The Secret Lives of the Brain" for a very accessible guide to where you keep going wrong.   

Yes, because the difference isn’t what you think it is. Perception is the processing of sensory input into information, which is shaped and mediated be learning, memory etc. All of these are “reactions” at some level – there’s no need to invoke magic just because it looks mysterious to you.   

No, you are. Perception is itself rooted in “reactions” (cause and effect) – ie, the firing signals between neurons of such immense complexity that we (and it seems other species) are self-aware.   

That’s just not true. You rarely if ever engage openly and honestly with any of the rebuttals that undo you – rather you just ignore them, or respond just with more personal incredulity. Your relentless reliance on logical fallacies for example is regularly explained to you, but never once do you say something like, “OK, I can see now what the argumentum ad consequentiam entails and why it’s a false argument, so in future I won’t use it. Thank you for educating me about that”.

Instead you return to the same mistakes in reasoning over and over again, learning nothing as you go.   

Why is that?

It does no such thing, but even if it did that’s precisely an example of the argmentum ad consequentiam. You might not like the idea of “nature pulling the strings” as you put it, but not liking something tells you nothing at all abut the quality of the argument that leads to that conclusion.

Can you see now why your refusal ever to learn is letting you down so badly?
   
No, let’s not. Any time you’re asked a question that you know falsifies you, you just run away from it no matter how often it’s asked. You told us a while back for example that the strength of your feelings about something must somehow inform the quality of your explanation for it. I asked you over and over again what logical path you think there to be from one to the other but never once did you answer. I even asked you why you wouldn’t answer, but you just ignored that too.

Can you see now why some of us find you to be so dishonest?

So more in hope than expectation, let’s try again shall we:

Can you see that you would perceive a separate "you" doing the choosing in exactly the same way you would perceive an integrated you that's a self-aware naturalistic organism?

And if you can see that the two perceptions would be identical at an experiential level, why then opt for the explanatory model that's relies on magic over the one that relies on reason and evidence?

Thanks for another detailed response.

But in all this I can find no explanation for what comprises a conscious recipient of information, which is the main problem when it comes to explaining the concept of perception.  Just presuming that conscious perception is explained by "immense complexity" within neural activity is not an explanation, just a highly optimistic guess, based on the short sighted logic that nothing can exist outside what can be perceived by our human senses and man made equipment.

And your last paragraph presumes that there can be such a thing as a "self-aware naturalistic organism".  But in order to achieve self awareness there is the obvious need to have an explanation for how the elusive recipient of information can exist in a naturalistic sense.  The problem you still have is to explain how a conscious recipient of information can be produced by material reactions.

Also, your accusations of argmentum ad consequentiam appear to be based on your opinion that the conclusions and deductions I make are based on what I want to believe.  They are not.  They are logical deductions based on a realistic assessment of the limitations of what can be achieved by physically predetermined material reactions.

[Roses]

AB your statements have no evidence to back them up, just your thoughts on the matter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Thanks for another detailed response.

But in all this I can find no explanation for what comprises a conscious recipient of information, which is the main problem when it comes to explaining the concept of perception.  Just presuming that conscious perception is explained by "immense complexity" within neural activity is not an explanation, just a highly optimistic guess, based on the short sighted logic that nothing can exist outside what can be perceived by our human senses and man made equipment.

I don’t know what the hell’s wrong with you, but this repeated nonsense is doing you no favours.

First, even if you “can find no explanation” for something that tells you nothing whatever about what the explanation might be. You not knowing the answer does not provide a rationale for just inserting an answer that takes your fancy about which you have no information of any kind, and for which you provide no means of investigation whatever. 

Second, we do have an explanation for consciousness. Lots and lots of it in fact, and the gaps in it are actively being researched by people who work in the field. I gave you a link and cited a book to get you started on a journey of understanding about that, but yet again you just ignored both. Why?

I’ll tell you why. For as long as you don’t let facts and evidence intrude into your assertions you can keep making them over and over again. The moment though you did bother to find out something about the science you dismiss blithely out of hand then you’d be forced to confront your mistake. And you won’t let that happen at any cost will you.

Third, no-one “just presumes” anything (or at least no-one but you in respect of “soul” etc). What some of us actually do is to follow where the overwhelming evidence leads, which is pretty much the antithesis of “just presuming”. Perhaps if you stopped being so dishonest about that you’d go some way at least toward repairing your tattered reputation here.     

And your last paragraph presumes that there can be such a thing as a "self-aware naturalistic organism".  But in order to achieve self awareness there is the obvious need to have an explanation for how the elusive recipient of information can exist in a naturalistic sense.  The problem you still have is to explain how a conscious recipient of information can be produced by material reactions.

No, that’s not a problem I have at all. Emergent properties are everywhere we look in nature, and there’s no fundamental reason to conclude that consciousness isn’t one of them given sufficient complexity of its constituent parts. Just asserting “it can’t be natural” is an expression of your blind faith but nothing else. If you don’t want to keep being treated here as a laughing stock then, finally, you’ll need to come up with some explanation for WHY it can’t be naturalistic given that that conclusion is entirely congruent with our findings about other emergent properties.   

Also,

You can’t have an also when your prior efforts have just collapsed.

…your accusations of argmentum ad consequentiam appear to be based on your opinion that the conclusions and deductions I make are based on what I want to believe.  They are not.  They are logical deductions based on a realistic assessment of the limitations of what can be achieved by physically predetermined material reactions.

Why are you lying again? They’re “based on” the observation that you have precisely used an argumentum ad consequentiam. You said that if the rational explanation was correct then we’d be just “puppets” of nature, so that explanation cannot be true. It’s hard to think of a more exact example of the argumentum ad consequentiam – leaving aside for now that the statement is utter drivel, even if it was true your distaste for it would still tell you nothing whatever about the quality of the reasoning that led to that conclusion. Unless you ever educate yourself about even the basics of logic and rhetoric you’re condemned to repeat mistakes of this kind over and over again.

Why are you so desperate to do that?

Oh, and as you’ve just run away from it again here’s the question you’re so scared to answer. I’ve put it in bold this time so you have no excuse for pretending not to have seen it:

Can you see that you would perceive a separate "you" doing the choosing in exactly the same way you would perceive an integrated you that's a self-aware naturalistic organism?

And if you can see that the two perceptions would be identical at an experiential level, why then opt for the explanatory model that's relies on magic over the one that relies on reason and evidence?

[SusanDoris]

AB your statements have no evidence to back them up, just your thoughts on the matter.

And how he can consider the smug arrogance of his  assertions, totally lacking in objective evidence, as worthy of what one can only suppose he thinks is Christian behaviour is shudderingly obtuse/cringe-inducing/pick-any-suitable-alternative.

[Alan Burns]

Try too David Eagleman's "Incognito - The Secret Lives of the Brain" for a very accessible guide to where you keep going wrong.   

Just read this very apt summary of Eagleman's book:

This is Eagleman's thesis: Because metaphysical free will and immaterial souls don't exist, no one is responsible for his actions. According to Eagleman's reasoning, he can't be responsible for writing a pointless and meaningless book because his actions are caused by his brain chemistry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just read this very apt summary of Eagleman's book:

This is Eagleman's thesis: Because metaphysical free will and immaterial souls don't exist, no one is responsible for his actions. According to Eagleman's reasoning, he can't be responsible for writing a pointless and meaningless book because his actions are caused by his brain chemistry.

The stupidity and dishonesty of it suggests that you found it on one of the lying religious websites you're in thrall to. Just post a link to the citation and we'll know though won't we.

[Alan Burns]

Can you see that you would perceive a separate "you" doing the choosing in exactly the same way you would perceive an integrated you that's a self-aware naturalistic organism?

And if you can see that the two perceptions would be identical at an experiential level, why then opt for the explanatory model that's relies on magic over the one that relies on reason and evidence?

But you can't just presume that there is such a thing as a self-aware naturalistic organism until you can define (or explain) the "self" in naturalistic terms (ie in terms of physically predetermined material reactions).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But you can't just presume that there is such a thing as a self-aware naturalistic organism until you can define (or explain) the "self" in naturalistic terms (ie in terms of physically predetermined material reactions).

Leaving aside your continued lying about that, it has nothing to do with the question you were asked.

As the experience of "free" will would be the same whether the explanation for it it was magic or evidence-based rationalism, why would you pick the former over the latter? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The stupidity and dishonesty of it suggests that you found it on one of the lying religious websites you're in thrall to. Just post a link to the citation and we'll know though won't we.

It was on the Amazon.com list of reviews, and this was only a small extract from the full review.

It highlights the short sighted stupidity of concluding that everything is predetermined in our subconscious before we are aware of it.

This would mean that your posts and mine, and the entire contents of Eagleman's book were just the inevitable, uncontrollable consequences of subconscious brain activity. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Leaving aside your continued lying about that, it has nothing to do with the question you were asked.

As the experience of "free" will would be the same whether the explanation for it it was magic or evidence-based rationalism, why would you pick the former over the latter?

We can't "experience" anything if we do not have the conscious awareness of the human soul.

[torridon]

We can't "experience" anything if we do not have the conscious awareness of the human soul.

Then how does my labrador experience pain when I step on its foot ?  Is nature one great big hoax designed to fool us ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,
     

It was on the Amazon.com list of reviews, and this was only a small extract from the full review.

I’ve just scrolled through the 127 almost all very positive reviews (the book scores 4.5/5 overall) and I can’t find it. Either way, if you ignore almost all the positive reviews and select instead just the one (dimwitted and anonymous) one that suits you what does that say about you do you think?   

It highlights the short sighted stupidity of concluding that everything is predetermined in our subconscious before we are aware of it.

No, it doesn’t “highlight” that at all – is just asserts it (as you do) with neither evidence nor logic to support it (also as you do).

This would mean that your posts and mine, and the entire contents of Eagleman's book were just the inevitable, uncontrollable consequences of subconscious brain activity.

It would mean no such thing, but even if it did as I just explained the argumentum ad consequentiam to you why have you just ignored that and then repeated it?

If you seriously want to proselytise your faith beliefs, why persist in making yourself look stupid when you do it? Do you not think that will make you even less likely to be taken seriously?

[Alan Burns]

Then how does my labrador experience pain when I step on its foot ?  Is nature one great big hoax designed to fool us ?

You are once more confusing conscious awareness with predictable instinctive reaction.  You can't just presume that your labrador has the same conscious awareness as yourself by observing natural instinctive reactions.

In most situations, our conscious awareness allows override control over how we react to perceived sensory data.  Before we react instinctively, our conscious awareness coupled with freewill gives us the ability to deliberately suppress or alter an instinctive reaction if we so wish.