Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

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.

Alan, the human brain does NOT see the whole picture simultaneously. What you see is the part of the whole picture you are looking at. You are aware that other things are there peripherally, but you can't see what they are unless you direct your eyes to them.

[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.

Even if that is true, as I have asked you before, why should human intelligence have anything to do with a deity, and not just down to us being more evolved than apes?

But it is not just bigger brains and greater intelligence which makes us different to animals.  Our conscious self and associated free will did not just evolve from apes, as one day you will find out.

[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

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

You're supposed to be the teacher B A, now's your chance, it's all yours.

ippy

[Leonard James]

But it is not just bigger brains and greater intelligence which makes us different to animals.  Our conscious self and associated free will did not just evolve from apes, as one day you will find out.

Indeed! The conscious self and free will evolved before that, which is why both we and other apes possess it.

[Sassy]

Even if that is true, as I have asked you before, why should human intelligence have anything to do with a deity, and not just down to us being more evolved than apes?

Because according to evolution nothing/no other species but man has evolved.
Think about that. Our cognitive functions and skills are far advanced beyond that of animals...
We can do and think far more than any animals.
What makes us different to the millions of species of animals on the planet still living as they did when first created?

[Leonard James]

Because according to evolution nothing/no other species but man has evolved.

 

Oh my, Sass! It must be the way you tell 'em! 

[Gordon]

Even if that is true, as I have asked you before, why should human intelligence have anything to do with a deity, and not just down to us being more evolved than apes?

Because according to evolution nothing/no other species but man has evolved.
Think about that. Our cognitive functions and skills are far advanced beyond that of animals...
We can do and think far more than any animals.
What makes us different to the millions of species of animals on the planet still living as they did when first created?

I think you need to do some homework as regards the ToE, Sass.

[Alan Burns]

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.

Alan, the human brain does NOT see the whole picture simultaneously. What you see is the part of the whole picture you are looking at. You are aware that other things are there peripherally, but you can't see what they are unless you direct your eyes to them.

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

[ekim]

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.

If you look at my reply, I said 'many religious people'.  It was not an attack upon your integrity.  However, in many of your replies you do use the jargon of the church to support your claims.  If through your pondering you have arrived at some truth, wouldn't it be better to use a language better suited to the age in which we live and for instance, answer my question what do you mean by 'spiritual consciousness' without using the words 'spirit' or 'soul'.

As regards the chimp not carrying on with the ritual if the reward stopped, it might depend upon how long the conditioning process continued for.  If it was passed on from chimp to chimp for 2000 years, it might be difficult to break the habit despite there not being any evidence of a heavenly reward arriving.

[floo]

Even if that is true, as I have asked you before, why should human intelligence have anything to do with a deity, and not just down to us being more evolved than apes?

Because according to evolution nothing/no other species but man has evolved.
Think about that. Our cognitive functions and skills are far advanced beyond that of animals...
We can do and think far more than any animals.
What makes us different to the millions of species of animals on the planet still living as they did when first created?

Poor Sass!

[Alan Burns]

If you look at my reply, I said 'many religious people'.  It was not an attack upon your integrity.  However, in many of your replies you do use the jargon of the church to support your claims.  If through your pondering you have arrived at some truth, wouldn't it be better to use a language better suited to the age in which we live and for instance, answer my question what do you mean by 'spiritual consciousness' without using the words 'spirit' or 'soul'.

The term 'spiritual consciousness' is just to distinguish from the material consciousness which can be demonstrated with computerised artificial intelligence.  Material consciousness is generated purely by material entities reacting to their immediate environment, and is not really consciouness at all but a series of physical reactions with nothing actually being perceived.  The spiritual consciousness involves perception as well as reaction, but the question I pose to you is "What is it that perceives?".

[Shaker]

Because according to evolution nothing/no other species but man has evolved.

Just when you think that Word Salad Sass can't possibly come out with anything more moronic than the last I've-had-my-brain-removed inanity, she does so.

Outstanding work. Absolutely outstanding.

[Leonard James]

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

I AM my brain, Alan, just as you are yours and everybody else is, too. It is WE (our brains) that feel the sensory inputs, not some other self inside our bodies.

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

What computer like analysis is going on here then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EjukzL-bJc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYU1eayaXs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

[torridon]

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.

Alan, the human brain does NOT see the whole picture simultaneously. What you see is the part of the whole picture you are looking at. You are aware that other things are there peripherally, but you can't see what they are unless you direct your eyes to them.

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

At the same place my dog is in all this. My dog experiences sight using the same biological structures as I do. So if I need a soul in order to see the content of my visual cortex, then so does my dog.

[floo]

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

I AM my brain, Alan, just as you are yours and everybody else is, too. It is WE (our brains) that feel the sensory inputs, not some other self inside our bodies.

Agreed. Without our brains we wouldn't be able to exist.

[ippy]

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

I AM my brain, Alan, just as you are yours and everybody else is, too. It is WE (our brains) that feel the sensory inputs, not some other self inside our bodies.

Another way of putting it, wouldn't our bods be life support systems for our brains, perhaps that might help Alan.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

What computer like analysis is going on here then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EjukzL-bJc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYU1eayaXs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

The reactions of elephants, apes and dolphins in these videos are open to interpretation.  Some people may well interpret these reactions as demonstrating a form of self awareness, but they could also be generated by complex combinations of instinct and learnt behaviour.

[Nearly Sane]

What computer like analysis is going on here then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EjukzL-bJc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYU1eayaXs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

The reactions of elephants, apes and dolphins in these videos are open to interpretation.  Some people may well interpret these reactions as demonstrating a form of self awareness, but they could also be generated by complex combinations of instinct and learnt behaviour.

which is then true of all other humans.

[Alan Burns]

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

I AM my brain, Alan, just as you are yours and everybody else is, too. It is WE (our brains) that feel the sensory inputs, not some other self inside our bodies.

Sorry, Len, but as I have said, your brain is just a complex arrangement of basic atomic particles.  You are much, much more that that.

[torridon]

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

I AM my brain, Alan, just as you are yours and everybody else is, too. It is WE (our brains) that feel the sensory inputs, not some other self inside our bodies.

Sorry, Len, but as I have said, your brain is just a complex arrangement of basic atomic particles.  You are much, much more that that.

And so is my dog.

My dog is made of billions of particles of matter, none of which are alive, and yet this barky, hairy, slobbering, stick-chasing thing emerges somehow out of all that. Basically it's the same with us except I don't like chasing sticks so much.

[Alan Burns]

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

I AM my brain, Alan, just as you are yours and everybody else is, too. It is WE (our brains) that feel the sensory inputs, not some other self inside our bodies.

Sorry, Len, but as I have said, your brain is just a complex arrangement of basic atomic particles.  You are much, much more that that.

And so is my dog.

My dog is made of billions of particles of matter, none of which are alive, and yet this barky, hairy, slobbering, stick-chasing thing emerges somehow out of all that. Basically it's the same with us except I don't like chasing sticks so much.

It seems like you are convincing yourself that your dog has a soul too.   

[Leonard James]

Sorry, Len, but as I have said, your brain is just a complex arrangement of basic atomic particles.  You are much, much more that that.

Not so! I know it's anathema for you Alan, but that's all we are. We are the result of electrochemical reactions that have been going on for billions of years, being gradually shaped by the environment into the wonderful assortment we are today.

Some of us are happy with that, some of us aren't and look for more, but most people don't even stop to think about it ... they just get on with the business of living. Maybe we should get wise and take a page out of their books!

[floo]

The word 'soul' is only another name for the part of the brain which makes us who we are, it doesn't exist in another part of the body like a separate entity!

[Alan Burns]

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

I AM my brain, Alan, just as you are yours and everybody else is, too. It is WE (our brains) that feel the sensory inputs, not some other self inside our bodies.

Sorry, Len, but as I have said, your brain is just a complex arrangement of basic atomic particles.  You are much, much more that that.

The way our brains function makes us the way we are. My husband has only half a brain working after his brain haemorrhage, and it has had a profound effect on him, as one would expect!

Our brain and sensory inputs are the soul's interface into this material world.  If the brain is damaged, the functionality of the interface will suffer problems, but rest assured, the soul will still be intact.