Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

Outrider

thank you. However, the light is stil being refracted on the drops of water, isn't it?  So aren't the colours still there to be seen? Would other apes, for instance, see it?

The colours of light are there where you're standing, yes, but if you could go to the point where it appears the coloured bands are in the sky there's just water - it's an optical illusion.

O.

[Outrider]

Not sure that is quite right. Sound is a cerebral phenomenon in the brain of the hearer. The tree falling will cause pressure waves in a surrounding medium if there is one, but the pressure waves themselves are silent, and so a tree falling in and of itself is a silent event.

The sound is still there, us hearing is recognising the pressure waves and interpreting, the pressure waves are still there, and the pressure waves are sound.

O.

[Outrider]

Any product produced by a pattern of activity is just an end reaction to that activity defined by another observed pattern of sub atomic particles.

No, there's no requirement for them to have been observed in order to be a pattern, and certainly not of sub-atomic particles - observing them can change their behaviour

Consciousness is not defined in terms of a reaction.  It is perception.

That's your definition, it's not mine. That sounds like a subjective description of consciousness, not a definition, because it's circular: consciousness is our perception... but that perception requires a consciousness to be aware of the perception, and so on, and so on.

That circularity, though, reinforces the idea that awareness/consciousness are feedback loops in the pattern of activity in the brain.

O.

[SusanDoris]

Outrider

thank you.

[Alan Burns]

Any 'little man' regime is bound to fail because it implies an infinite regress.  The little man would require an even littler man inside to make emergent sense of the little man's experience.

An infinite regress is a hallmark of a non-explanation. The buck has to stop somewhere and by indulging infinite regressions we are practising avoidance.  I might broadly characterise my journey from believer to atheist as being a decision to face up, to stop passing the buck, to disavow superficial rationalisations.

The little man regime is only an infinite regress if you consider it in material terms.  The spiritual soul is simply a non material entity which perceives brain content, provides conscious awareness and interaction to provide free will.

[Alan Burns]

Not sure that is quite right. Sound is a cerebral phenomenon in the brain of the hearer. The tree falling will cause pressure waves in a surrounding medium if there is one, but the pressure waves themselves are silent, and so a tree falling in and of itself is a silent event.

The sound is still there, us hearing is recognising the pressure waves and interpreting, the pressure waves are still there, and the pressure waves are sound.

O.

The pressure waves are simply vibrating air molecules.  They can only be interpreted as sound through conscious perception.

[Alan Burns]

Any product produced by a pattern of activity is just an end reaction to that activity defined by another observed pattern of sub atomic particles.

No, there's no requirement for them to have been observed in order to be a pattern, and certainly not of sub-atomic particles - observing them can change their behaviour

Consciousness is not defined in terms of a reaction.  It is perception.

That's your definition, it's not mine. That sounds like a subjective description of consciousness, not a definition, because it's circular: consciousness is our perception... but that perception requires a consciousness to be aware of the perception, and so on, and so on.

That circularity, though, reinforces the idea that awareness/consciousness are feedback loops in the pattern of activity in the brain.

O.

But no matter how you try to describe conscious awareness, in the materialistic scenario you still end up with our conscious awareness having to be defined entirely by an arrangement of sub atomic particles, because in the material world nothing else exists.

[torridon]

Any 'little man' regime is bound to fail because it implies an infinite regress.  The little man would require an even littler man inside to make emergent sense of the little man's experience.

An infinite regress is a hallmark of a non-explanation. The buck has to stop somewhere and by indulging infinite regressions we are practising avoidance.  I might broadly characterise my journey from believer to atheist as being a decision to face up, to stop passing the buck, to disavow superficial rationalisations.

The little man regime is only an infinite regress if you consider it in material terms.  The spiritual soul is simply a non material entity which perceives brain content, provides conscious awareness and interaction to provide free will.

The spiritual soul is simply an unevidenced proposition that relieves us of the discomfort of infinite regress. A bit of comforting make-believe in other words.

[Alan Burns]

Consciousness is not easy to define but it certainly includes perception. When a gazelle sees a lion creeping up on it that is conscious perception.  The gazelle, by the way, does not need to have a little gazelle inside it to make sense of the patterns of incoming information to recognise it as something scary and gazelle-eating;  that is what the brain does.

But we do not know if the Gazelle's actions are just programmed reactions without need of conscious perception.

I know we struggle with mind/body. Try thinking of it like this : every thing in the cosmos has a subjective aspect, and an objective aspect when viewed from somewhere else.  Thus I can say 'I am', but someone else referring to me would say, 'he is'.  Both are equally valid statements. Mind and brain are essentially two aspects of the same thing.  Rather like a lens will focus sunlight, what a brain does, is to focus subjectivity, it creates a highly refined and enriched region, or focal point, of subjectivity.  Thus in contrast to a stone or a twig or a skyscraper, a brain manufactures a very rich sense of 'being' or 'am' ing and the first-person subjective aspect of that is what we call mind.

The concepts of subjectivity and objectivity only exist in our own conscious awareness.  In the material world everything just exists.

[torridon]

But no matter how you try to describe conscious awareness, in the materialistic scenario you still end up with our conscious awareness having to be defined entirely by an arrangement of sub atomic particles, because in the material world nothing else exists.

FIFY.

There is no evidence for anything else beyond the 'material' world.  If there were any evidence for such, then by definition it would be part of the material world.

Your in a cleft stick methinks.

[Outrider]

Any 'little man' regime is bound to fail because it implies an infinite regress.  The little man would require an even littler man inside to make emergent sense of the little man's experience.

An infinite regress is a hallmark of a non-explanation. The buck has to stop somewhere and by indulging infinite regressions we are practising avoidance.  I might broadly characterise my journey from believer to atheist as being a decision to face up, to stop passing the buck, to disavow superficial rationalisations.

The little man regime is only an infinite regress if you consider it in material terms.  The spiritual soul is simply a non material entity which perceives brain content, provides conscious awareness and interaction to provide free will.

But what makes the little man free? What drives the little man to stop him being determined by his situation?

O.

[Outrider]

The pressure waves are simply vibrating air molecules.  They can only be interpreted as sound through conscious perception.

The vibrating molecules can only be interpreted through conscious perception, everything can only be interpreted through conscious perception, but their existence is independent of the interpretation.

O.

[Outrider]

But no matter how you try to describe conscious awareness, in the materialistic scenario you still end up with our conscious awareness having to be defined entirely by an arrangement of sub atomic particles, because in the material world nothing else exists.

Right. I don't have a problem with that, that's broadly what I've been saying is the case.

O.

[Alan Burns]

But no matter how you try to describe conscious awareness, in the materialistic scenario you still end up with our conscious awareness having to be defined entirely by an arrangement of sub atomic particles, because in the material world nothing else exists.

FIFY.

There is no evidence for anything else beyond the 'material' world.  If there were any evidence for such, then by definition it would be part of the material world.

Your in a cleft stick methinks.

But does our own conscious awareness provide evidence for a non material entity (our soul) which has a window into this material world through the vehicle of the human body?

[Alan Burns]

Any 'little man' regime is bound to fail because it implies an infinite regress.  The little man would require an even littler man inside to make emergent sense of the little man's experience.

An infinite regress is a hallmark of a non-explanation. The buck has to stop somewhere and by indulging infinite regressions we are practising avoidance.  I might broadly characterise my journey from believer to atheist as being a decision to face up, to stop passing the buck, to disavow superficial rationalisations.

The little man regime is only an infinite regress if you consider it in material terms.  The spiritual soul is simply a non material entity which perceives brain content, provides conscious awareness and interaction to provide free will.

But what makes the little man free? What drives the little man to stop him being determined by his situation?

O.

No doubt we will know more about this when we reach our spiritual home.

[torridon]

But no matter how you try to describe conscious awareness, in the materialistic scenario you still end up with our conscious awareness having to be defined entirely by an arrangement of sub atomic particles, because in the material world nothing else exists.

FIFY.

There is no evidence for anything else beyond the 'material' world.  If there were any evidence for such, then by definition it would be part of the material world.

Your in a cleft stick methinks.

But does our own conscious awareness provide evidence for a non material entity (our soul) which has a window into this material world through the vehicle of the human body?

Eermm,  no.

Thats just fantasy

[torridon]

Any 'little man' regime is bound to fail because it implies an infinite regress.  The little man would require an even littler man inside to make emergent sense of the little man's experience.

An infinite regress is a hallmark of a non-explanation. The buck has to stop somewhere and by indulging infinite regressions we are practising avoidance.  I might broadly characterise my journey from believer to atheist as being a decision to face up, to stop passing the buck, to disavow superficial rationalisations.

The little man regime is only an infinite regress if you consider it in material terms.  The spiritual soul is simply a non material entity which perceives brain content, provides conscious awareness and interaction to provide free will.

But what makes the little man free? What drives the little man to stop him being determined by his situation?

O.

No doubt we will know more about this when we reach our spiritual home.

More output from the Burns fantasy mill.

There is no evidence for a 'spiritual home'

[torridon]

Consciousness is not easy to define but it certainly includes perception. When a gazelle sees a lion creeping up on it that is conscious perception.  The gazelle, by the way, does not need to have a little gazelle inside it to make sense of the patterns of incoming information to recognise it as something scary and gazelle-eating;  that is what the brain does.

But we do not know if the Gazelle's actions are just programmed reactions without need of conscious perception.

If the gazelle is up and running, we can be pretty sure it is conscious.  This is the quality of awareness that we characterise during periods of waking.

[Alan Burns]

But no matter how you try to describe conscious awareness, in the materialistic scenario you still end up with our conscious awareness having to be defined entirely by an arrangement of sub atomic particles, because in the material world nothing else exists.

Right. I don't have a problem with that, that's broadly what I've been saying is the case.

O.

So how can the state of many discrete sub atomic particles be pulled together into the single point of conscious awareness which is you?

[torridon]

I know we struggle with mind/body. Try thinking of it like this : every thing in the cosmos has a subjective aspect, and an objective aspect when viewed from somewhere else.  Thus I can say 'I am', but someone else referring to me would say, 'he is'.  Both are equally valid statements. Mind and brain are essentially two aspects of the same thing.  Rather like a lens will focus sunlight, what a brain does, is to focus subjectivity, it creates a highly refined and enriched region, or focal point, of subjectivity.  Thus in contrast to a stone or a twig or a skyscraper, a brain manufactures a very rich sense of 'being' or 'am' ing and the first-person subjective aspect of that is what we call mind.

The concepts of subjectivity and objectivity only exist in our own conscious awareness.  In the material world everything just exists.

I'd agree that concepts are a phenomenon of mind.  We could claim that numbers don't exist inasmuch they are an abstract concept of mind. I don't see the fact that minds can conceptualise validates the notion that minds themselves are immaterial

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But does our own conscious awareness provide evidence for a non material entity (our soul) which has a window into this material world through the vehicle of the human body?

No, and nor does anything else provide evidence for this supposed "soul" - in all likelihood because there's no such thing. 

As for gazelles etc, there are numerous examples of animals showing remarkable intelligence and awareness: making and using tools; deferring reward; "mourning" their dead etc that by any meaningful definition shows them to be conscious and self-aware. If you insist on inserting "soul" as the explanation for human consciousness, you have no basis to deny it to other animals too.

And no, "but only we believe in god" does not mean that we are qualitatively different for this purpose.   

[torridon]

But no matter how you try to describe conscious awareness, in the materialistic scenario you still end up with our conscious awareness having to be defined entirely by an arrangement of sub atomic particles, because in the material world nothing else exists.

Right. I don't have a problem with that, that's broadly what I've been saying is the case.

O.

So how can the state of many discrete sub atomic particles be pulled together into the single point of conscious awareness which is you?

Not so much a single point, more a focal point, I would say.  Each and every neuron, each and every synapse is a tiny fragment of knowledge about the world, and a brain is so architected as to integrate, refine, blend and focus all those trillions of tiny fragments of sentience into a focal point of subjectivity; a mind is the upshot of all that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torridon,

I'd agree that concepts are a phenomenon of mind.  We could claim that numbers don't exist inasmuch they are an abstract concept of mind. I don't see the fact that minds can conceptualise validates the notion that minds themselves are immaterial

Did you mean to say that minds are "immaterial"?

[torridon]

torridon,

I'd agree that concepts are a phenomenon of mind.  We could claim that numbers don't exist inasmuch they are an abstract concept of mind. I don't see the fact that minds can conceptualise validates the notion that minds themselves are immaterial

Did you mean to say that minds are "immaterial"?

No I argue for the mind as being the subjective aspect of a brain and brains are definately material.

[Maeght]

But no matter how you try to describe conscious awareness, in the materialistic scenario you still end up with our conscious awareness having to be defined entirely by an arrangement of sub atomic particles, because in the material world nothing else exists.

Right. I don't have a problem with that, that's broadly what I've been saying is the case.

O.

So how can the state of many discrete sub atomic particles be pulled together into the single point of conscious awareness which is you?

Why do you just question conscious awareness? Everything is made up of sub atomic particles so why not equally question everything? If awareness is a product of the brain which is a material thing, just like all other material things, the point of it being made of sub atomic particle is irrelevant.