Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Its not just humans, all conscious animals have conscious perception (as well as subconcious perception, obviously).

You can't say that for certain unless you can enter the mind of an animal.  All we can say is that their external behaviour might indicate that they have conscious perception...

OK, but you don't really believe it to be the case that all other animals have no conscious experience stream do you ? You kick a dog, it yelps in pain, I'm sure, that like me, your assumption is that the dog is actually experiencing pain in some similar experience to how we feel pain. So why bring that up, except to dodge facing up to the fact that your oft quoted assertion that conscious perception requires a separate perceiver is just wrong ?

[torridon]

I accept that nature is deterministic. Our body and brain follow certain biological laws. They are predictable. Circumstances are beyond our control.  Agreed.

However, the mind is something we don't yet understand.  You assume that the mind is a product of the brain and take it as part of the biological system. 

I think of the mind and consciousness as independent of the brain.....

Any evidence for that ?

And how would that work, anyway ?

[Maeght]

I accept that nature is deterministic. Our body and brain follow certain biological laws. They are predictable. Circumstances are beyond our control.  Agreed.

However, the mind is something we don't yet understand.  You assume that the mind is a product of the brain and take it as part of the biological system. 

I think of the mind and consciousness as independent of the brain.....

Any evidence for that ?

And how would that work, anyway ?

It'll be all about NDEs and comparisons with computer software and hardware.

[Alan Burns]

Its not just humans, all conscious animals have conscious perception (as well as subconcious perception, obviously).

You can't say that for certain unless you can enter the mind of an animal.  All we can say is that their external behaviour might indicate that they have conscious perception...

OK, but you don't really believe it to be the case that all other animals have no conscious experience stream do you ? You kick a dog, it yelps in pain, I'm sure, that like me, your assumption is that the dog is actually experiencing pain in some similar experience to how we feel pain. So why bring that up, except to dodge facing up to the fact that your oft quoted assertion that conscious perception requires a separate perceiver is just wrong ?

I am not convinced that animals have perception as opposed to biologically controlled reactions.  However, if animals do experience a form of conscious perception in the way that humans do, then its definition will be beyond material science, but the fact that animals have no discenable free will means they can't be held to account for their actions.  If both animals and humans have been brought into existence through the creative power of God's will, there will be some similarities, but the ability to invoke free will to override instinct and learnt experience  looks to be a uniquely human attribute.

[ekim]

I accept that nature is deterministic. Our body and brain follow certain biological laws. They are predictable. Circumstances are beyond our control.  Agreed.

However, the mind is something we don't yet understand.  You assume that the mind is a product of the brain and take it as part of the biological system. 

I think of the mind and consciousness as independent of the brain.....

Any evidence for that ?

And how would that work, anyway ?

If I recall correctly, there are Indian schools of thought which view the relationship of consciousness and matter differently to the way we might in the west.  Brahman is claimed as the ultimate reality out of which all else arises.  Brahman is represented by three qualities found in the expression 'satchitananda'.  Sat is pure changeless, timeless essence (being).  Chit is pure consciousness and ananda is bliss or joy.  Depending upon how you define 'mind', mind and matter come into existence from Being/Consciousness, not the other way around.  It is unlikely that evidence exists in the form that you would expect it to be.  Various yoga practices/ meditation practices are attempts to transcend the mind and matter elements so that satchitanada is realised.  Evidence is from a Latin word 'to see out'.  There ought to be a corresponding word for 'to see in' as that is where those practices tend to lead.

[torridon]

OK, but you don't really believe it to be the case that all other animals have no conscious experience stream do you ? You kick a dog, it yelps in pain, I'm sure, that like me, your assumption is that the dog is actually experiencing pain in some similar experience to how we feel pain. So why bring that up, except to dodge facing up to the fact that your oft quoted assertion that conscious perception requires a separate perceiver is just wrong ?

I am not convinced that animals have perception as opposed to biologically controlled reactions.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Perception is about sensory input streams - sight , sound, touch etc. Do you understand something different ?

However, if animals do experience a form of conscious perception in the way that humans do, then its definition will be beyond material science

That's a big claim to make.  How do you justify that ?

[Shaker]

It's Descartes all over again 

[BashfulAnthony]

OK, but you don't really believe it to be the case that all other animals have no conscious experience stream do you ? You kick a dog, it yelps in pain, I'm sure, that like me, your assumption is that the dog is actually experiencing pain in some similar experience to how we feel pain. So why bring that up, except to dodge facing up to the fact that your oft quoted assertion that conscious perception requires a separate perceiver is just wrong ?

I am not convinced that animals have perception as opposed to biologically controlled reactions.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Perception is about sensory input streams - sight , sound, touch etc. Do you understand something different ?

However, if animals do experience a form of conscious perception in the way that humans do, then its definition will be beyond material science

That's a big claim to make.  How do you justify that ?

He can't!

[Alan Burns]

Perception is about sensory input streams - sight , sound, touch etc. Do you understand something different ?

The sensory input streams send signals to certain parts of the brain, but these parts a still just individual bits of material.  Perception is about perceiving the collective states of these individual bits of material, rather than just reacting to them.   I believe that animals react whereas humans perceive and then consciously decide how to react.

[torridon]

Perception is about sensory input streams - sight , sound, touch etc. Do you understand something different ?

The sensory input streams send signals to certain parts of the brain, but these parts a still just individual bits of material.  Perception is about perceiving the collective states of these individual bits of material, rather than just reacting to them.   I believe that animals react whereas humans perceive and then consciously decide how to react.

Perception is not about reaction, that comes later. Perception is about our awareness of what is around us. Subconscious perception is faster, subliminal, more faithful to reality. Conscious perception takes time to produce, is more sophisticated, richer and fictitious, to some extent. As an example of subconscious perception, the British Army in Afghan had intelligence operatives seaching satellite images for Taliban caves, but rather than asking them to look at photos and say when they found a cave, they wired them up with headsets to a computer and the software would detect when they had seen a cave without (consciously) realising it. Subconscious perception is truer, simpler, faster and more faithful to reality, it is not subject to the agendas nor indeed the time lag that characterise conscious perception.  You cannot in all seriousness claim that other animals do not have conscious perception, this would be to claim in effect, that all other animals are permanently asleep.  For sure the particular qualitites of conscious perception will vary from species to species and from individual; some see colour, some don't; a bat sees but without eyes; a scorpion hears through its legs, we can only try to imagine what conscious awareness is like for other creatures, but it is silly to claim that they don't have it, the production of conscious awareness is a base cognitive function of the mammalian brain and will be basically similar in all creatures that share a mammalian brain, which includes humans of course.

I really don't see how your idea of a soul fits into this scenario; it suggests a form of double experiencing going on. Does it sit there somehow watching my conscious perception and experiencing that in some sort of secondary way ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perception is about sensory input streams - sight , sound, touch etc. Do you understand something different ?

The sensory input streams send signals to certain parts of the brain, but these parts a still just individual bits of material.  Perception is about perceiving the collective states of these individual bits of material, rather than just reacting to them.   I believe that animals react whereas humans perceive and then consciously decide how to react.

I saw an interesting programme about chimps a while back which would make that assumption of yours wrong Alan. They appear to perceive and then decide how to react. But of course humans are only a more evolved ape.

Since you have complained on another board about Christian's not singing fro the same songsheet can we agree on the celebratory version of ''happy birthday to you'' we will use on Len's big day?

How about

Happy Birthday to you,
From the religionethics zoo
You descended from monkeys
and evolved from them too.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Yer nuts but I love nuts.

But are we? Evolved from monkeys, evolved from apes.

Or, am I just being pedantic.

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

Dear Vlad,

Yer nuts but I love nuts.

But are we? Evolved from monkeys, evolved from apes.

 and not forgetting the blood in our veins is really just modified seawater 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

What!! Or have you been taking NicholasMarks pills

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Perception is about sensory input streams - sight , sound, touch etc. Do you understand something different ?

The sensory input streams send signals to certain parts of the brain, but these parts a still just individual bits of material.  Perception is about perceiving the collective states of these individual bits of material, rather than just reacting to them.   I believe that animals react whereas humans perceive and then consciously decide how to react.

Perception is not about reaction, that comes later. Perception is about our awareness of what is around us. Subconscious perception is faster, subliminal, more faithful to reality. Conscious perception takes time to produce, is more sophisticated, richer and fictitious, to some extent. As an example of subconscious perception, the British Army in Afghan had intelligence operatives seaching satellite images for Taliban caves, but rather than asking them to look at photos and say when they found a cave, they wired them up with headsets to a computer and the software would detect when they had seen a cave without (consciously) realising it. Subconscious perception is truer, simpler, faster and more faithful to reality, it is not subject to the agendas nor indeed the time lag that characterise conscious perception.  You cannot in all seriousness claim that other animals do not have conscious perception, this would be to claim in effect, that all other animals are permanently asleep.  For sure the particular qualitites of conscious perception will vary from species to species and from individual; some see colour, some don't; a bat sees but without eyes; a scorpion hears through its legs, we can only try to imagine what conscious awareness is like for other creatures, but it is silly to claim that they don't have it, the production of conscious awareness is a base cognitive function of the mammalian brain and will be basically similar in all creatures that share a mammalian brain, which includes humans of course.

I really don't see how your idea of a soul fits into this scenario; it suggests a form of double experiencing going on. Does it sit there somehow watching my conscious perception and experiencing that in some sort of secondary way ?

Yes, I very much agree. When I had to avoid the muppet in a Lexus trying to overtake both myself and other drivers on a winding road yesterday I didn't have time to consciously choose anything, I just perceived and reacted. I did consciously choose to treat the kids to a takeaway for dinner, but then if you present a cat with two bowls of food, one from a tin and one from a little foil tray at five times the price, the cat will sniff both before selecting the luxury option.

Your last paragraph is interesting - there is an idea that runs through Eastern spirituality and that has been popularised by Ekhart Tolle in the West, that we are not our thoughts and that there is indeed a self - IIRC Tolle calls this 'the watcher' - who observes our thoughts, only the 'thinker' is illusory and the 'watcher' our true self. I think it something that is encouraged in meditation - to observe the thoughts that arise without judgement - and the idea presented by Tolle and others (eg Thict Nhat Hanh) is that we can carry this through to ordinary life through mindfulness. As Hanh puts it, if you are so busy looking forward to having a cup of tea you are missing the miracle of you, now, washing up. And of course the cup of tea might not come if you get caught up in answering the phone or the power goes off.

But where this ties in with Alan's Christian belief I'm not sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

Yer nuts but I love nuts.

But are we? Evolved from monkeys, evolved from apes.

 and not forgetting the blood in our veins is really just modified seawater 

When I read that I made a kind of simian whooping noise which some people refer to as ''a laugh''

[Shaker]

Perception is about sensory input streams - sight , sound, touch etc. Do you understand something different ?

The sensory input streams send signals to certain parts of the brain, but these parts a still just individual bits of material.  Perception is about perceiving the collective states of these individual bits of material, rather than just reacting to them.   I believe that animals react whereas humans perceive and then consciously decide how to react.

... which means that you'll dredge anything from the bottom of the barrel no matter how fatuous and specious in order to shore up the human exceptionalism and avoid the dread thought of the continuity of all life on which your theology in a large part rests.

[floo]

Perception is about sensory input streams - sight , sound, touch etc. Do you understand something different ?

The sensory input streams send signals to certain parts of the brain, but these parts a still just individual bits of material.  Perception is about perceiving the collective states of these individual bits of material, rather than just reacting to them.   I believe that animals react whereas humans perceive and then consciously decide how to react.

I saw an interesting programme about chimps a while back which would make that assumption of yours wrong Alan. They appear to perceive and then decide how to react. But of course humans are only a more evolved ape.

Since you have complained on another board about Christian's not singing fro the same songsheet can we agree on the celebratory version of ''happy birthday to you'' we will use on Len's big day?

How about

Happy Birthday to you,
From the religionethics zoo
You descended from monkeys
and evolved from them too.

I don't know about Leonard, but I think that is rather good!

[Alan Burns]

Perception is not about reaction, that comes later. Perception is about our awareness of what is around us. Subconscious perception is faster, subliminal, more faithful to reality. Conscious perception takes time to produce, is more sophisticated, richer and fictitious, to some extent. As an example of subconscious perception, the British Army in Afghan had intelligence operatives seaching satellite images for Taliban caves, but rather than asking them to look at photos and say when they found a cave, they wired them up with headsets to a computer and the software would detect when they had seen a cave without (consciously) realising it. Subconscious perception is truer, simpler, faster and more faithful to reality, it is not subject to the agendas nor indeed the time lag that characterise conscious perception.  You cannot in all seriousness claim that other animals do not have conscious perception, this would be to claim in effect, that all other animals are permanently asleep.  For sure the particular qualitites of conscious perception will vary from species to species and from individual; some see colour, some don't; a bat sees but without eyes; a scorpion hears through its legs, we can only try to imagine what conscious awareness is like for other creatures, but it is silly to claim that they don't have it, the production of conscious awareness is a base cognitive function of the mammalian brain and will be basically similar in all creatures that share a mammalian brain, which includes humans of course.

I really don't see how your idea of a soul fits into this scenario; it suggests a form of double experiencing going on. Does it sit there somehow watching my conscious perception and experiencing that in some sort of secondary way ?

I entirely agree that conscious perception is not about reaction, but material science is all about reaction (to events).  That's all molecules and atoms do - they react.  I maintain that perception can't be fully defined by chemical reactions.  All that happens in the physical brain is that signals get passed around by chain reactions to events, but there is no definitive state which defines how all the signals are perceived, or what perceives them.  Atoms react, they do not perceive.   

[floo]

The more humans have evolved the more our perception has improved, imo.

[torridon]

Perception is not about reaction, that comes later. Perception is about our awareness of what is around us. Subconscious perception is faster, subliminal, more faithful to reality. Conscious perception takes time to produce, is more sophisticated, richer and fictitious, to some extent. As an example of subconscious perception, the British Army in Afghan had intelligence operatives seaching satellite images for Taliban caves, but rather than asking them to look at photos and say when they found a cave, they wired them up with headsets to a computer and the software would detect when they had seen a cave without (consciously) realising it. Subconscious perception is truer, simpler, faster and more faithful to reality, it is not subject to the agendas nor indeed the time lag that characterise conscious perception.  You cannot in all seriousness claim that other animals do not have conscious perception, this would be to claim in effect, that all other animals are permanently asleep.  For sure the particular qualitites of conscious perception will vary from species to species and from individual; some see colour, some don't; a bat sees but without eyes; a scorpion hears through its legs, we can only try to imagine what conscious awareness is like for other creatures, but it is silly to claim that they don't have it, the production of conscious awareness is a base cognitive function of the mammalian brain and will be basically similar in all creatures that share a mammalian brain, which includes humans of course.

I really don't see how your idea of a soul fits into this scenario; it suggests a form of double experiencing going on. Does it sit there somehow watching my conscious perception and experiencing that in some sort of secondary way ?

I entirely agree that conscious perception is not about reaction, but material science is all about reaction (to events).  That's all molecules and atoms do - they react.  I maintain that perception can't be fully defined by chemical reactions.  All that happens in the physical brain is that signals get passed around by chain reactions to events, but there is no definitive state which defines how all the signals are perceived, or what perceives them.  Atoms react, they do not perceive.   

Then you are back to a goose having a soul then. If you are still claiming that an inner perceiver is required to make sense and meaning out of all the raw sensory input data then this inner perceiver must exist in all animals that have conscious perception. You're running around in circles.

[Spud]

Dear Vlad,

Yer nuts but I love nuts.

But are we? Evolved from monkeys, evolved from apes.

 and not forgetting the blood in our veins is really just modified seawater 

When I read that I made a kind of simian whooping noise which some people refer to as ''a laugh''

Was it a chimp laugh or a human laugh? A chimp laughs both when it breathes in and when it breathes out, whereas we use our vocal cords differently and only laugh as we are breathing out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

Yer nuts but I love nuts.

But are we? Evolved from monkeys, evolved from apes.

 and not forgetting the blood in our veins is really just modified seawater 

When I read that I made a kind of simian whooping noise which some people refer to as ''a laugh''

Was it a chimp laugh or a human laugh? A chimp laughs both when it breathes in and when it breathes out, whereas we use our vocal cords differently and only laugh as we are breathing out.

It was like a cross between a Bonobo and Mrs Rochester from Jane Eyre.........does that help?

[torridon]

Perception is not about reaction, that comes later. Perception is about our awareness of what is around us. Subconscious perception is faster, subliminal, more faithful to reality. Conscious perception takes time to produce, is more sophisticated, richer and fictitious, to some extent. As an example of subconscious perception, the British Army in Afghan had intelligence operatives seaching satellite images for Taliban caves, but rather than asking them to look at photos and say when they found a cave, they wired them up with headsets to a computer and the software would detect when they had seen a cave without (consciously) realising it. Subconscious perception is truer, simpler, faster and more faithful to reality, it is not subject to the agendas nor indeed the time lag that characterise conscious perception.  You cannot in all seriousness claim that other animals do not have conscious perception, this would be to claim in effect, that all other animals are permanently asleep.  For sure the particular qualitites of conscious perception will vary from species to species and from individual; some see colour, some don't; a bat sees but without eyes; a scorpion hears through its legs, we can only try to imagine what conscious awareness is like for other creatures, but it is silly to claim that they don't have it, the production of conscious awareness is a base cognitive function of the mammalian brain and will be basically similar in all creatures that share a mammalian brain, which includes humans of course.

I really don't see how your idea of a soul fits into this scenario; it suggests a form of double experiencing going on. Does it sit there somehow watching my conscious perception and experiencing that in some sort of secondary way ?

Yes, I very much agree. When I had to avoid the muppet in a Lexus trying to overtake both myself and other drivers on a winding road yesterday I didn't have time to consciously choose anything, I just perceived and reacted. I did consciously choose to treat the kids to a takeaway for dinner, but then if you present a cat with two bowls of food, one from a tin and one from a little foil tray at five times the price, the cat will sniff both before selecting the luxury option.

Your last paragraph is interesting - there is an idea that runs through Eastern spirituality and that has been popularised by Ekhart Tolle in the West, that we are not our thoughts and that there is indeed a self - IIRC Tolle calls this 'the watcher' - who observes our thoughts, only the 'thinker' is illusory and the 'watcher' our true self. I think it something that is encouraged in meditation - to observe the thoughts that arise without judgement - and the idea presented by Tolle and others (eg Thict Nhat Hanh) is that we can carry this through to ordinary life through mindfulness. As Hanh puts it, if you are so busy looking forward to having a cup of tea you are missing the miracle of you, now, washing up. And of course the cup of tea might not come if you get caught up in answering the phone or the power goes off.

But where this ties in with Alan's Christian belief I'm not sure.

I like your drivng anecdote.  Driving is a good example of an activity that can induce another mind state, perhaps we've all had the experience on a long drive when we suddenly come to and realise we don't recall any of the road conditions for the past couple of miles.  Despite being in charge of a ton of dangerous metal at speed, somehow we slipped into autopilot but drove competently nonetheless. Dividing experience into subconscious/conscious is of course rudimentary, we have many different mind states, hypnotised for example, in coma, in vegetative state, dreaming.  I like to think of fascination as a mind state and would relate the fascination a snake feels in response to the snake charmer's music as something akin to the fascination I see in some form of religious practice, somewhere between full alertness and hypnosis, like an idea that you just cannot shake off.

[ekim]

.... or elephants responding to classical music .... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/16/elephants-in-belgium-zoo-swing-to-classical-violin-music_n_7594396.html