Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

torridon
I wish I had this chimp's speed and accuracy of memory ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAIGVT3N7B0

That's awesome. It's one thing to learn that eagles have so much better eyesight than us, or that our sense of smell is negligible to that of a dog, but when you see other creatures so effortlessly outperforming us in cognitive tasks it should really give us pause for wonder.  Isn't that supposed to be our territory ?

Some people are made extremely uncomfortable by all this.

And I found that just as baffling when I was a Christian as I do now.

Baffling that people find it uncomfortable, you mean?

[Rhiannon]

torridon
I wish I had this chimp's speed and accuracy of memory ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAIGVT3N7B0

That's awesome. It's one thing to learn that eagles have so much better eyesight than us, or that our sense of smell is negligible to that of a dog, but when you see other creatures so effortlessly outperforming us in cognitive tasks it should really give us pause for wonder.  Isn't that supposed to be our territory ?

Some people are made extremely uncomfortable by all this.

And I found that just as baffling when I was a Christian as I do now.

Baffling that people find it uncomfortable, you mean?

Yes. Really odd.

[Shaker]

No. Really, really not odd at all. Not odd if you maintain a religious outlook; downright batshit insane if you don't.

On the Christian schema human beings are the crown of God's creation. Top rung of the scala naturae. Top of the tree. Head honchos. El queso grande. I'm-it-and-you're-shit. It's in the book. It's true because somebody once wrote it down, and therefore it's true because the book says it is.

On the scientific schema human beings are just one species out of so many that the true number on this one planet isn't even accurately known and can only be guessed at. All occupy an ecological niche absolutely none of which has any more intrinsic, inherent worth, value, meaning or purpose than any other, since as far as we know only one species can even have any concept of worth, value, meaning or purpose, and if you're an even minimally competent critical, sceptical thinker that should start the alarm bells ringing. Life, all life of every and any kind everywhere that it exists in the only place in the cosmos currently known to exist, is a level playing field. If you're alive, you've made it this far. The ability to write a sonnet, compose a symphony or buy a birthday cake for your infant daughter is important to (only some) human beings but has no more objective "value" - in fact less - than deep-sea echolocation by cetaceans.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torridon
I wish I had this chimp's speed and accuracy of memory ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAIGVT3N7B0

That's awesome. It's one thing to learn that eagles have so much better eyesight than us, or that our sense of smell is negligible to that of a dog, but when you see other creatures so effortlessly outperforming us in cognitive tasks it should really give us pause for wonder.  Isn't that supposed to be our territory ?

Some people are made extremely uncomfortable by all this.

I can understand you liking chimps  for their ''Fuck you!'' attitude......personally I hate the bastards. What I am uncomfortable with are antitheists who exaggerate the capabilities of the hairy shitthrowers just to ''stick one on the Christians.''

[Alan Burns]

That still leaves you to face up to the fact that your original claim, that conscious perception requires an inner (supernatural) perceiver is wrong unless you admit that other animals also have a similar supernatural entity inside them.  Clearly, when animals are not sleeping or hibernating, they are awake and having some form of conscious experience. We cannot know what the quality of that experience is of course, but we cannot reasonably doubt that they are having some form of experience; when their eyes are open, they are experiencing sight, when they haven't eaten for a while, they experience hunger, when they see a predator bearing down on them, they experience fear. Your explanatory rationale for all this, that there is some invisible unevidenced supernatural perceiver inside just raises more problems than it solves imv.

I fully agree that the biological consciousness you assume human beings have also applies to animals.  Perhaps it would make things clearer if I described the human variety as spiritual consciouness, which allows the self awareness of the human soul to drive our thoughts and free will.

You remind me of an ancient Briton, striking off shards of flint to create his handaxe, you strike off shards of meaning from the terms you use as we expose them as useless. So now mere biological consciousness can be dispensed with and maybe you feel on safer ground with spiritual consciousness, a term not so amenable to definition and analysis. Does 'spiritual consciousness' actually exist, or are you hiding in the fog of language I wonder.

If you look back on my posts you will find that I have always maintained that there is more to human conscious awareness than mere biological activity.

[Shaker]

I can understand you liking chimps  for their ''Fuck you!'' attitude......personally I hate the bastards. What I am uncomfortable with are antitheists who exaggerate the capabilities of the hairy shitthrowers just to ''stick one on the Christians.''

So you're uncomfortable. Meh.

[Shaker]

If you look back on my posts you will find that I have always maintained that there is more to human conscious awareness than mere biological activity.

You've always maintained a lot of things, Alan, and always without a scrap of evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

torridon
I wish I had this chimp's speed and accuracy of memory ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAIGVT3N7B0

That's awesome. It's one thing to learn that eagles have so much better eyesight than us, or that our sense of smell is negligible to that of a dog, but when you see other creatures so effortlessly outperforming us in cognitive tasks it should really give us pause for wonder.  Isn't that supposed to be our territory ?

Some people are made extremely uncomfortable by all this.

I can understand you liking chimps  for their ''Fuck you!'' attitude......personally I hate the bastards. What I am uncomfortable with are antitheists who exaggerate the capabilities of the hairy shitthrowers just to ''stick one on the Christians.''

that's a lovely big pish on Alan Burns' bonfire

[Nearly Sane]

That still leaves you to face up to the fact that your original claim, that conscious perception requires an inner (supernatural) perceiver is wrong unless you admit that other animals also have a similar supernatural entity inside them.  Clearly, when animals are not sleeping or hibernating, they are awake and having some form of conscious experience. We cannot know what the quality of that experience is of course, but we cannot reasonably doubt that they are having some form of experience; when their eyes are open, they are experiencing sight, when they haven't eaten for a while, they experience hunger, when they see a predator bearing down on them, they experience fear. Your explanatory rationale for all this, that there is some invisible unevidenced supernatural perceiver inside just raises more problems than it solves imv.

I fully agree that the biological consciousness you assume human beings have also applies to animals.  Perhaps it would make things clearer if I described the human variety as spiritual consciouness, which allows the self awareness of the human soul to drive our thoughts and free will.

You remind me of an ancient Briton, striking off shards of flint to create his handaxe, you strike off shards of meaning from the terms you use as we expose them as useless. So now mere biological consciousness can be dispensed with and maybe you feel on safer ground with spiritual consciousness, a term not so amenable to definition and analysis. Does 'spiritual consciousness' actually exist, or are you hiding in the fog of language I wonder.

If you look back on my posts you will find that I have always maintained that there is more to human conscious awareness than mere biological activity.

which is exactly the sort of non comprehensible and comprehending answer I would expect from a bot.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Petunia,

Post 3000 is ages away Muuumm!! Are we there yet

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

That still leaves you to face up to the fact that your original claim, that conscious perception requires an inner (supernatural) perceiver is wrong unless you admit that other animals also have a similar supernatural entity inside them.  Clearly, when animals are not sleeping or hibernating, they are awake and having some form of conscious experience. We cannot know what the quality of that experience is of course, but we cannot reasonably doubt that they are having some form of experience; when their eyes are open, they are experiencing sight, when they haven't eaten for a while, they experience hunger, when they see a predator bearing down on them, they experience fear. Your explanatory rationale for all this, that there is some invisible unevidenced supernatural perceiver inside just raises more problems than it solves imv.

I fully agree that the biological consciousness you assume human beings have also applies to animals.  Perhaps it would make things clearer if I described the human variety as spiritual consciouness, which allows the self awareness of the human soul to drive our thoughts and free will.

You remind me of an ancient Briton, striking off shards of flint to create his handaxe, you strike off shards of meaning from the terms you use as we expose them as useless. So now mere biological consciousness can be dispensed with and maybe you feel on safer ground with spiritual consciousness, a term not so amenable to definition and analysis. Does 'spiritual consciousness' actually exist, or are you hiding in the fog of language I wonder.

If you look back on my posts you will find that I have always maintained that there is more to human conscious awareness than mere biological activity.

That's as maybe, but in the course of that you have maintained, persistently, that conscious perception requires a separate observer, to 'see' the activity of the brain cells, to use your phraseology.  Conscious perception is a base cognitive function shared by all higher animals, and I am just pointing out the inconsistency in your position that if humans need a separate internally resident supernatural immaterial observer to make this work, then all other animals need something similar. In my 'materialist' paradigm, when I wake up and open my eyes the phenomenon of sight that I then start to experience is the patterns of excitation in visual cortex at the rear of the brain.  To you, there has to be something else observing those patterns of cerebral excitation. So how come, when my dog wakes up and becomes conscious and opens its eyes, it can experience the phenomenon of sight without the added component of an internally resident supernatural observer ? Please attempt an answer without deviation, repetition or obfuscation 

[ekim]

torridon
I wish I had this chimp's speed and accuracy of memory ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAIGVT3N7B0

That seems typical of a machine type programmed reaction in auto pilot mode, done with little conscious thought.  Computers are capable of much faster reactions than humans, because they do not ponder about things, they just react.  The chimp aptly demonstrates that it can react in a computer-like fashion.

That's sums up the nature of many religious people.  They become conditioned (programmed) to believe in scriptural text or dominant priests and react (e.g. kill) without pondering about things.  Perhaps you could give some conscious thought to defining what you mean by 'spiritual consciousness' and how one can be sure that it is not present in say a chimpanzee or a small child, which also had fast reactions.

[jeremyp]

So you are saying that whatever comprises "You" is nothing but part of a chain reaction of events which began with the start of our universe, and everything that happens to You will be totally pre determined by chemical reactions controlled entirely by the laws of science and nothing else.

I don't know if Ippy is saying that, but I certainly am.

But as for me, I control my own destiny.

But you can't break the laws of physics by the power of your mind.

[torridon]

But you can't break the laws of physics by the power of your mind.

Yes, well put.

Alan likes to think that human willpower is something supernatural, but somehow we only use that awesome ability for trivial things like choosing cups of tea over cups of coffee etc. If I had supernatural willpower I'd use it to solve world poverty or make rivers run uphill, just for fun. The possibilities would be endless 

[Dicky Underpants]

But you can't break the laws of physics by the power of your mind.

Yes, well put.

Alan likes to think that human willpower is something supernatural, but somehow we only use that awesome ability for trivial things like choosing cups of tea over cups of coffee etc. If I had supernatural willpower I'd use it to solve world poverty or make rivers run uphill, just for fun. The possibilities would be endless 

Just like the 'superhuman' Uri Geller

[ippy]

Hi Alan, a thought has just come to my mind about "heaven". What happens about all the infants and young children who die before reaching maturity ... do they simply continue as they are or do they somehow grow up after reaching heaven? How will their parents, who lost them as babies, recognise them again?

Good question.

If heaven exits and is perfect paradise, wouldn't it get very boring after a while, if we have the personalities as we have in this life?

I like this view of yours Floo, just think for a moment, say if you like me were perfect in every way never saying a word out of place, always doing the right thing, supporting every charity, always every hair in place, devastatingly good looking; just think how about every one that had any dealings with us would be so pissed off with that pair of goody two shoes.

Suppose we were to go to the heaven that Alan, really thinks exists, without having any valid reason, we'd both be doubly perfect there and so would everybody else, I can't think of anything less satisfying or more mind numbingly boring; no thanks and when thinking about it for about a half of a millisecond, how come the religious believers can't see the stupidity of the heaven idea, it's so obvious that it's non runner, a stupid idea

ippy     

You have no imagination, or ability to think out of the box:  indeed, very little ability to think, full stop.

And you've got the imagination to believe in nonsense, I'll give you that B A.

ippy

[ippy]

So you are saying that whatever comprises "You" is nothing but part of a chain reaction of events which began with the start of our universe, and everything that happens to You will be totally pre determined by chemical reactions controlled entirely by the laws of science and nothing else.

I don't know if Ippy is saying that, but I certainly am.

But as for me, I control my own destiny.

But you can't break the laws of physics by the power of your mind.

Nothing to do with me J P.

I can't make out what Alans on about, so nothing new there.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

That's as maybe, but in the course of that you have maintained, persistently, that conscious perception requires a separate observer, to 'see' the activity of the brain cells, to use your phraseology.  Conscious perception is a base cognitive function shared by all higher animals, and I am just pointing out the inconsistency in your position that if humans need a separate internally resident supernatural immaterial observer to make this work, then all other animals need something similar. In my 'materialist' paradigm, when I wake up and open my eyes the phenomenon of sight that I then start to experience is the patterns of excitation in visual cortex at the rear of the brain.  To you, there has to be something else observing those patterns of cerebral excitation. So how come, when my dog wakes up and becomes conscious and opens its eyes, it can experience the phenomenon of sight without the added component of an internally resident supernatural observer ? Please attempt an answer without deviation, repetition or obfuscation 

Quite simply I see the difference is that dogs and other animals react to the visual image according to instinct and learnt experience.  In computer terms, the visual image is input data which gets analysed, then the results of the analysis will be used by other programs to produce results in the form of physical reactions.

The difference with humans is that the image is not merely analysed and reacted upon by set programs, but it is actually perceived in a conscious manner, and this conscious perception does not have an automated response, but a considered response where free thoughts are allowed to interact with the normal response to the image.

[Alan Burns]

But you can't break the laws of physics by the power of your mind.

Our mind does not break the laws of physics.  The laws of physics are used to determine the consequences of an event.  The human mind can induce events in the brain through conscious acts of free will, and these events will be acted upon by the laws of physics.  No laws will be broken.

I think you are getting confused by the deterministic view that all events must be caused by previous events, but this is just an assumption, not a scientific law.

[Alan Burns]

That's sums up the nature of many religious people.  They become conditioned (programmed) to believe in scriptural text or dominant priests and react (e.g. kill) without pondering about things.  Perhaps you could give some conscious thought to defining what you mean by 'spiritual consciousness' and how one can be sure that it is not present in say a chimpanzee or a small child, which also had fast reactions.

You are very wrong on this point.  I am most definitely not on automatic reaction due to my religious teaching.  My conscience actually makes me much more aware of the choices available to me, and helps me to determine which one is the best choice, but even then I have the ability to use my free will to go against the views of my conscience if I so wish.  There is a lot of pondering involved.

The chimpanzee clip aptly demonstates that the chimp is simply reacting to a visual image according to learnt experience in order to get a reward.  There is no perception of the meaning of each numerical digit, nor will there be awareness of the concept of numerical order.  If the chimp had to think about these things, it would take much longer and probably get it wrong.  And it would not carry on doing it for fun if the reward stopped coming.

[BashfulAnthony]

Hi Alan, a thought has just come to my mind about "heaven". What happens about all the infants and young children who die before reaching maturity ... do they simply continue as they are or do they somehow grow up after reaching heaven? How will their parents, who lost them as babies, recognise them again?

Good question.

If heaven exits and is perfect paradise, wouldn't it get very boring after a while, if we have the personalities as we have in this life?

I like this view of yours Floo, just think for a moment, say if you like me were perfect in every way never saying a word out of place, always doing the right thing, supporting every charity, always every hair in place, devastatingly good looking; just think how about every one that had any dealings with us would be so pissed off with that pair of goody two shoes.

Suppose we were to go to the heaven that Alan, really thinks exists, without having any valid reason, we'd both be doubly perfect there and so would everybody else, I can't think of anything less satisfying or more mind numbingly boring; no thanks and when thinking about it for about a half of a millisecond, how come the religious believers can't see the stupidity of the heaven idea, it's so obvious that it's non runner, a stupid idea

ippy     

You have no imagination, or ability to think out of the box:  indeed, very little ability to think, full stop.

And you've got the imagination to believe in nonsense, I'll give you that B A.

ippy

You have no idea in what sense I am using the word "imagination," have you?  Look up Einstein.

[torridon]

That's as maybe, but in the course of that you have maintained, persistently, that conscious perception requires a separate observer, to 'see' the activity of the brain cells, to use your phraseology.  Conscious perception is a base cognitive function shared by all higher animals, and I am just pointing out the inconsistency in your position that if humans need a separate internally resident supernatural immaterial observer to make this work, then all other animals need something similar. In my 'materialist' paradigm, when I wake up and open my eyes the phenomenon of sight that I then start to experience is the patterns of excitation in visual cortex at the rear of the brain.  To you, there has to be something else observing those patterns of cerebral excitation. So how come, when my dog wakes up and becomes conscious and opens its eyes, it can experience the phenomenon of sight without the added component of an internally resident supernatural observer ? Please attempt an answer without deviation, repetition or obfuscation 

Quite simply I see the difference is that dogs and other animals react to the visual image according to instinct and learnt experience.  In computer terms, the visual image is input data which gets analysed, then the results of the analysis will be used by other programs to produce results in the form of physical reactions.

The difference with humans is that the image is not merely analysed and reacted upon by set programs, but it is actually perceived in a conscious manner, and this conscious perception does not have an automated response, but a considered response where free thoughts are allowed to interact with the normal response to the image.

I was not asking about reaction or decision making, I am challenging you on conscious perception, which is a passive thing. You claim that the biological structures involved in eyesight (for example) are insufficient to explain the experience of sight and we need a soul at the end of the chain to somehow 'see' the movement of particles in our brain, and it is the soul which is actually doing the seeing, not the cortex. So how come my dog can apparently see without a soul ?

[torridon]

But you can't break the laws of physics by the power of your mind.

Our mind does not break the laws of physics.  The laws of physics are used to determine the consequences of an event.  The human mind can induce events in the brain through conscious acts of free will, and these events will be acted upon by the laws of physics.  No laws will be broken.

The use of the word 'free' implies freedom from the laws of physics. We cannot be free of those laws, quite the opposite, we enact them, we express them.

[Alan Burns]

But you can't break the laws of physics by the power of your mind.

Our mind does not break the laws of physics.  The laws of physics are used to determine the consequences of an event.  The human mind can induce events in the brain through conscious acts of free will, and these events will be acted upon by the laws of physics.  No laws will be broken.

The use of the word 'free' implies freedom from the laws of physics. We cannot be free of those laws, quite the opposite, we enact them, we express them.

The word "free" in this context means that an act of free will is not bound by the consequences of previous events.  A free will action has a causal event in the brain which is induced by the conscious spirit of the human soul, not by the consequences of previous physical events.  The causal event will initiate physical events according to the laws of science - it does not override the laws of physics, it interacts with them.

[Alan Burns]

I was not asking about reaction or decision making, I am challenging you on conscious perception, which is a passive thing. You claim that the biological structures involved in eyesight (for example) are insufficient to explain the experience of sight and we need a soul at the end of the chain to somehow 'see' the movement of particles in our brain, and it is the soul which is actually doing the seeing, not the cortex. So how come my dog can apparently see without a soul ?

A computer can be programmed to react to an image by analysing the colours and shapes and textures within the image to produce an appropriate reaction.  The analysis will involve lots of programmed logic, but at no point in the analysis will the whole picture actually be perceived in the way human sight perceives.  The analysis will just involve sequences of logical steps to produce a result.  This is the type of "seeing" I assume animals have in order to react according to programmed instinct and experience. 

It is difficult for us to imagine that an animal can't see in the way humans do, but in order to do that they would need an entity (a soul) which simultaneously perceives the content of many brain cells as opposed to just analysing them in a computer like way.