Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

the network's activity includes what we define as 'perception'.

But the activity of lots of atomic particles does not define perception in my mind, because there is no "perceiver" defined within the particles.

No, the perceiver is determined in the pattern of activity, along with the perception.

O.

But I have to ask the obvious question -
How can a group of basic atomic particles define perception?
Any pattern to me is irrelevant because the pattern and any function of the pattern can only perceived from outside the pattern.  Internally, the pattern is still just a group of particles.

Take the images transmitted to the brain through our eyes.  The image of light gets focused on to a light sensetive surface.  Receptors on that surface transmit signals to several brain cells.  The state of the brain cells is then interpreted to
either :
a) form an image in the conscious awareness
or:
b) induce a reaction based in the interpretation of the image.

I can fully understand how option (b) will work in the material brain.
But option (a) requires something to perceive the content of many brain cells at once to form the image - not just a series of generated reactions.  I can understand how a pattern of brain cells can define an image, but you then need something to interpret what is in those individual brain cells in order to perceive the image.  This "something" can't be just another set of brain cells because you are left with an infinite regress of what inteprets the content of these brain cells ... and so on.

I find it difficult to explain this logic in words, but I hope you can understand it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to be ignoring the third and (to me) most obvious option.

He's "ignoring' it because it's neither obvious nor much of an option. There's no necessity for it, and inventing it nonetheless causes many more problems than it answers - where is this "little man at the controls" and how would it interact with our material brains? What form does it take? In what sense is it "free"? Why doesn't it need an even littler man at its controls? How would you propose to verify your hypothesis? Why deny it to other sentient creatures? etc

[Outrider]

But I have to ask the obvious question -
How can a group of basic atomic particles define perception?

The atoms don't. The pattern of activity varies, and that variation is our subjective experience of the perception.

Any pattern to me is irrelevant because the pattern and any function of the pattern can only perceived from outside the pattern.

No. The pattern can only be perceived from the outside, but the subjective feeling of perception is the change in the patter - we are the pattern, and when the pattern changes that's us feeling the perception.

Internally, the pattern is still just a group of particles.

And energy, yes.

Take the images transmitted to the brain through our eyes.  The image of light gets focused on to a light sensetive surface.  Receptors on that surface transmit signals to several brain cells.  The state of the brain cells is then interpreted to either :
a) form an image in the conscious awareness
or:
b) induce a reaction based in the interpretation of the image.

I can fully understand how option (b) will work in the material brain.
But option (a) requires something to perceive the content of many brain cells at once to form the image - not just a series of generated reactions.

No, it doesn't. You are the pattern. As the pattern changes slightly, so you change slightly - in this case, you change such that you are perceiving the image. You don't need to be aware of the pattern to be the pattern any more than you need to be aware of the process of the eye converting incident light into electro-chemical signals in order to see the light.

I can understand how a pattern of brain cells can define an image, but you then need something to interpret what is in those individual brain cells in order to perceive the image.

Yes, you.

This "something" can't be just another set of brain cells because you are left with an infinite regress of what inteprets the content of these brain cells ... and so on.

It's not the cells, it's the pattern of activity.

I find it difficult to explain this logic in words, but I hope you can understand it.

I think so - I hope so. You keep falling back on the idea that the brain is us, but that's not what I'm getting at. The Brain is like the hardware of a computer, whereas we are the software resident in that brain.

To return to your idea of a soul, though, a few questions.

How can a completely non-physical agency - the soul - interact with the universe? How does it know what we know, see what we see?

More to the point how does it get the 'instructions' that it has back into the body undetected? We have no widespread measure of anomolous activity in the brain, we can select any neuron and track input and output without seeing results that aren't the result of the underlying chemistry - where does the soul kick back in?

O.

[Alan Burns]

The pattern can only be perceived from the outside, but the subjective feeling of perception is the change in the patter - we are the pattern, and when the pattern changes that's us feeling the perception.

There are lots of changing patterns in this world, but they are only perceived in our conscious awareness.  The change is just a change - it does not in itself define awareness.

You are the pattern. As the pattern changes slightly, so you change slightly - in this case, you change such that you are perceiving the image. You don't need to be aware of the pattern to be the pattern any more than you need to be aware of the process of the eye converting incident light into electro-chemical signals in order to see the light.

But this description does not fully define what "you" comprises of.  The entire world comprises of changing patterns, so where does the "you" fit in?  Can the whole world be a "You"?

You keep falling back on the idea that the brain is us, but that's not what I'm getting at. The Brain is like the hardware of a computer, whereas we are the software resident in that brain.

No - the software is a series of pre defined instructions which define the behaviour of the hardware.  There is nothing pre defined about conscious awareness

To return to your idea of a soul, though, a few questions.

How can a completely non-physical agency - the soul - interact with the universe? How does it know what we know, see what we see?

More to the point how does it get the 'instructions' that it has back into the body undetected? We have no widespread measure of anomolous activity in the brain, we can select any neuron and track input and output without seeing results that aren't the result of the underlying chemistry - where does the soul kick back in?

I admit that I can't define how the soul works in physical terms.  I can only define it by what it does.

[torridon]

Take the images transmitted to the brain through our eyes.  The image of light gets focused on to a light sensetive surface.  Receptors on that surface transmit signals to several brain cells.  The state of the brain cells is then interpreted to
either :
a) form an image in the conscious awareness
or:
b) induce a reaction based in the interpretation of the image.

I can fully understand how option (b) will work in the material brain.
But option (a) requires something to perceive the content of many brain cells at once to form the image - not just a series of generated reactions.  I can understand how a pattern of brain cells can define an image, but you then need something to interpret what is in those individual brain cells in order to perceive the image.  This "something" can't be just another set of brain cells because you are left with an infinite regress of what inteprets the content of these brain cells ... and so on.

This regime is essentially a construct to get us out of the discomfort of an infinite regress. Positing some supernatural entity for which there is no evidence gets us nowhere in real terms, its just another superficial escape route out of confusion and doubt.  The hard thing to grasp is this - that we are those particles, or patterns within the electrochemical states of those particles; we all feel intuitively that we are a single person with agency and that is good enough to get us through the day.  But that is not consistent with the findings from life sciences, which implies that there is ultimately no such tangible 'thing' inside us pulling the levers of power, but rather, we are each a trillion things, not a single thing, we are composite beings walking around with the illusion of unitary personhood. Even more confusingly than that, we are also essentially an ecosystem on legs - the billions of bacteria and viruses that cohabit our frame are not incidental, they are essential to us, they are part of us and they inform our moods and feelings and choices. Understanding our multiplicitous composite nature renders redundant any need to invent some internal homunculus. 

You give an example of vision. Its a good starting place. When you open your eyes and look at the computer screen, we are altered by what happens; patterns of excitation on retina yield corresponding signals in the optic nerve in turn yielding eventually analogue patterns in the tangle of interconnected cells in the occipital lobe. Those cells are us, or part of us, and our vision of the screen is an analogue pattern within those cell networks that corresponds to the screen and that we take to be the screen although it isn't really, it is a qualia phenomenon of visual cortex that we have learned to trust implicitly to the extent that we can say 'seeing is believing'.

If you can get your head around how vision works then you are half way there to understanding the more complex phenomena of agency, consciousness, intentionality etc. And the way vision works in humans is broadly the same for all sighted animals, so understanding this eliminates your dissonance in having to posit some supernatural inner observer for humans but denying it to all other sighted animals.

[Outrider]

There are lots of changing patterns in this world, but they are only perceived in our conscious awareness.  The change is just a change - it does not in itself define awareness.

It doesn't define awareness, it explains awareness. Our experience is in the pattern of activity in the brain, so any given understanding is a change in the pattern.

But this description does not fully define what "you" comprises of.  The entire world comprises of changing patterns, so where does the "you" fit in?  Can the whole world be a "You"?

I am one of those patterns, you are one of those patterns. I could hypothesise that my wife's dog is a less complex pattern.

No - the software is a series of pre defined instructions which define the behaviour of the hardware.  There is nothing pre defined about conscious awareness

How do you know that the subjective experience of awareness is not just part of that software? It's self-updating, but then advanced computer software is also self-updating.

I admit that I can't define how the soul works in physical terms.  I can only define it by what it does.

What you presume it does. So you have an unevidenced concept, no mechanism by which it could work, and the only reason to have it is a combination of personal incredulity and the unfeasible concept of free will?

O.

[SusanDoris]

Between about 16:45 and 17:00 on BBC Radio 4 today there was a brain expert talking about how the brain works and thinks. Didn't catch his name. I don't suppose Alan Burns will listen to it, and even if he did, he'd probably interpret it quite wrongly, but it was very interessting.

[Alan Burns]

The hard thing to grasp is this - that we are those particles, or patterns within the electrochemical states of those particles;

This is the central core of confusion to me.

If we are the particles, then anything else comprising of such particles is also an entity of being.

In this scenario there is no essential difference between a rock and a baby.  A piece of rock could theoritically be zapped into a baby just by re arranging the atomic particles within it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but that just brings us back to the problem.......How do we know we are observing self awareness/consciousness rather than just intelligence and stimulus and response.

And until we have a clear definition of consciousness/awareness we won't be able to clearly state it. Why do you presume that consciousness is not an aspect of intelligence, stimulus and response?

You are either conflating these or you are not actually observing self awareness or consciousness,

Or you are arbitrarily deciding the are different.

Only we can observe consciousness Outrider. There is no machine to measure it. no science or method that can observe it.

Why? Even if, it turns out, our current equipment isn't measuring consciousness, why are you deciding it's in principle undetectable?

O.

What's the methodology then?
How do you differentiate between an intelligence and a conscious, self aware intelligence?

[Outrider]

What's the methodology then?

Measurement of brain activity correlating with accounts of subjective experience building up a model of the operation of the brain that produces testable hypotheses which are then validated or refuted.

How do you differentiate between an intelligence and a conscious, self aware intelligence?

At the moment, given the vague use of the terms, they're essentially colloquial expressions for variants of the same thing, so we don't so far as I know, but neurology is far from my speciality.

O.

[torridon]

The hard thing to grasp is this - that we are those particles, or patterns within the electrochemical states of those particles;

This is the central core of confusion to me.

If we are the particles, then anything else comprising of such particles is also an entity of being.

In this scenario there is no essential difference between a rock and a baby.  A piece of rock could theoritically be zapped into a baby just by re arranging the atomic particles within it.

Well, very broadly speaking, yes. As they say, you are what you eat.  Today's hamburger and fries will be me tomorrow, courtesy of digestion, metabolism and the rest.  As a wave crossing the ocean continuously conscripts new seawater into use at its leading edge and discards it from the rear, so do lifeforms in a vastly more complex way procure and transform and reorganise local material temporarily and then discard it. A big recycling process, but it does acheive something; all lifeforms use energy to do work and emit heat and so perhaps in a sense our real 'purpose' if there is one, is to enact thermodynamic law, gradually dissipating energy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's the methodology then?

Measurement of brain activity correlating with accounts of subjective experience building up a model of the operation of the brain that produces testable hypotheses which are then validated or refuted.

How do you differentiate between an intelligence and a conscious, self aware intelligence?

At the moment, given the vague use of the terms, they're essentially colloquial expressions for variants of the same thing, so we don't so far as I know, but neurology is far from my speciality.

O.

So that's a round about dunno then..........

Plus a retreat into ''your asking the wrong questions again......

.....and another shoehorning of ideas to fit science rather than science addressing the questions.

[Alan Burns]

Well, very broadly speaking, yes. As they say, you are what you eat.  Today's hamburger and fries will be me tomorrow, courtesy of digestion, metabolism and the rest.  As a wave crossing the ocean continuously conscripts new seawater into use at its leading edge and discards it from the rear, so do lifeforms in a vastly more complex way procure and transform and reorganise local material temporarily and then discard it. A big recycling process, but it does acheive something; all lifeforms use energy to do work and emit heat and so perhaps in a sense our real 'purpose' if there is one, is to enact thermodynamic law, gradually dissipating energy.

So we have the "Trigger's Broom" syndrome.  As Dell Boy commented about the broom which had had its head and handle replaced several times, "Its not the same bloody broom is it?"

So you seem to be implying that our awareness is not the trillions of particles (which all get replaced), but a function of those trillions of particles.  The particles form the machine which is the human body, and the body performs functions by reacting and reproducing.  Trigger's broom performs a function in sweeping the floor.  It may not be as complex as the functions performed by the human body, but it contains the same amount of self awareness as the functions performed by particles in the body.  Human awareness is much more than a function.  The universe comes into existence when a person is born.  The universe ceases to exist when a person dies, but what happens to the awareness?

[Gordon]

The universe comes into existence when a person is born.

No it doesn't, it their personal awareness that there is a Universe that occurs sometime post-birth (as their brain develops). 

The universe ceases to exist when a person dies, but what happens to the awareness?

No it doesn't, it is this same personal awareness of there being a Universe, resulting from biochemical activity in their brain, that ceases once the brain is dead.

It is just biology, Alan, nothing more.

[Outrider]

What's the methodology then?

Measurement of brain activity correlating with accounts of subjective experience building up a model of the operation of the brain that produces testable hypotheses which are then validated or refuted.

How do you differentiate between an intelligence and a conscious, self aware intelligence?

At the moment, given the vague use of the terms, they're essentially colloquial expressions for variants of the same thing, so we don't so far as I know, but neurology is far from my speciality.

O.

So that's a round about dunno then..........

Plus a retreat into ''your asking the wrong questions again......

.....and another shoehorning of ideas to fit science rather than science addressing the questions.

My apologies for not being at the forefront of neurological research, would you rather I made stuff up? Claimed truth based on what I wanted to be true and said it's a matter of faith?

If you think it's the right question show me why.

As to 'shoehorning' ideas to fit science, science follows where the evidence leads. There is a strong correlation between brain activity and our experience of self - if you can find something else that contributes and supply a reason to think it exists that isn't just an argument from personal incredulity then I'm sure the world is waiting with bated breath...

O.

[torridon]

Well, very broadly speaking, yes. As they say, you are what you eat.  Today's hamburger and fries will be me tomorrow, courtesy of digestion, metabolism and the rest.  As a wave crossing the ocean continuously conscripts new seawater into use at its leading edge and discards it from the rear, so do lifeforms in a vastly more complex way procure and transform and reorganise local material temporarily and then discard it. A big recycling process, but it does acheive something; all lifeforms use energy to do work and emit heat and so perhaps in a sense our real 'purpose' if there is one, is to enact thermodynamic law, gradually dissipating energy.

So we have the "Trigger's Broom" syndrome.  As Dell Boy commented about the broom which had had its head and handle replaced several times, "Its not the same bloody broom is it?"

Yes Trigger's broom is a useful analogy. Or standing on the beach looking at a wave rolling in, a child might observe that the wave is made of seawater, but a deeper insight says the the wave is not defined by the particles of seawater it is currently comprised of, rather that the seawater is a medium for the transport of the wave, which itself is something less tangible. Lifeforms are like that, constantly rolling through the cosmos wherever a suitable medium persists

So you seem to be implying that our awareness is not the trillions of particles (which all get replaced), but a function of those trillions of particles.  The particles form the machine which is the human body, and the body performs functions by reacting and reproducing.  Trigger's broom performs a function in sweeping the floor.  It may not be as complex as the functions performed by the human body, but it contains the same amount of self awareness as the functions performed by particles in the body.  Human awareness is much more than a function.  The universe comes into existence when a person is born.  The universe ceases to exist when a person dies, but what happens to the awareness?

What happens to awareness every night when you fall asleep ?

What happens when an ocean wave crashes onto the beach ? The energy of the wave dissipates into the beach. The energy still persists but its manifestation is no longer easily recognisable in the form it previously occupied. The processes of life create startlingly diverse complex patterns in organic material for a while before we crash onto our beach and recycle back into simpler forms.

[Alan Burns]

The universe comes into existence when a person is born.

No it doesn't, it their personal awareness that there is a Universe that occurs sometime post-birth (as their brain develops). 

The universe ceases to exist when a person dies, but what happens to the awareness?

No it doesn't, it is this same personal awareness of there being a Universe, resulting from biochemical activity in their brain, that ceases once the brain is dead.

It is just biology, Alan, nothing more.

Biology is just an observation of how our physical body works.
The universe is only known through human awareness.
Our awareness gives us everything - it should not be trivialised.

[Sassy]

The universe comes into existence when a person is born.

No it doesn't, it their personal awareness that there is a Universe that occurs sometime post-birth (as their brain develops). 

Evidence please...It is dark in the womb just what awareness are you think about when it comes to the universe.
The baby is developing and it's universe is it's surroundings...

The universe ceases to exist when a person dies, but what happens to the awareness?

No it doesn't, it is this same personal awareness of there being a Universe, resulting from biochemical activity in their brain, that ceases once the brain is dead.

It is just biology, Alan, nothing more.

The universe is still here. We do not know what ceases when a person dies. Other than they are no longer alive...

[Alan Burns]

What happens to awareness every night when you fall asleep ?

The human brain functions as a window into this physical universe.  The window may be shut at night, but the awareness is still there, and it may no longer be experiencing all the features of this universe, including the time dimension.  The brain might generate a dream, which could be likened to the playing of a video which the awareness will experience.

[Gordon]

Biology is just an observation of how our physical body works.

No it isn't - bits of our biology work whether or not we are aware of it, such as our autonomic nervous system.

The universe is only known through human awareness.

By humans I presume you mean, but so what? All you are referring to here is how your biology works, since your human awareness is intrinsic to your biology.
 

Our awareness gives us everything - it should not be trivialised.

A meaningless statement: your awareness doesn't 'give' you anything, it is just you biology at work. It isn't trivial I agree, but then an hour or so from now I'm going to ride a motorcycle in blustery weather (which I love doing, since it adds to the sense of risk) so I hope my brain continues to do what it naturally does whenever I'm awake.

[Gordon]

The universe comes into existence when a person is born.

No it doesn't, it their personal awareness that there is a Universe that occurs sometime post-birth (as their brain develops). 

Evidence please...It is dark in the womb just what awareness are you think about when it comes to the universe.
The baby is developing and it's universe is it's surroundings...

Eh! I clearly said that awareness is a developmental process.

[Alan Burns]

standing on the beach looking at a wave rolling in, a child might observe that the wave is made of seawater, but a deeper insight says the the wave is not defined by the particles of seawater it is currently comprised of, rather that the seawater is a medium for the transport of the wave, which itself is something less tangible. Lifeforms are like that, constantly rolling through the cosmos wherever a suitable medium persists

The wave is being observed, but what is the observer?  Can it really be compared to the wave it is observing?  The observer is much more than a transient pattern of particles.

[floo]

The universe comes into existence when a person is born.

No it doesn't, it their personal awareness that there is a Universe that occurs sometime post-birth (as their brain develops). 

Evidence please...It is dark in the womb just what awareness are you think about when it comes to the universe.
The baby is developing and it's universe is it's surroundings...

The universe ceases to exist when a person dies, but what happens to the awareness?

No it doesn't, it is this same personal awareness of there being a Universe, resulting from biochemical activity in their brain, that ceases once the brain is dead.

It is just biology, Alan, nothing more.

The universe is still here. We do not know what ceases when a person dies. Other than they are no longer alive...

If you are no longer alive you are dead, end of!

[torridon]

What happens to awareness every night when you fall asleep ?

The human brain functions as a window into this physical universe.  The window may be shut at night, but the awareness is still there, and it may no longer be experiencing all the features of this universe, including the time dimension.  The brain might generate a dream, which could be likened to the playing of a video which the awareness will experience.

Its not really correct to claim that awareness persists through sleep. A gazelle would not be aware of the lion creeping up on it if it was sound asleep. Awareness is minimal during sleep, and even more so in hibernation, and maybe even more so still in coma.

[torridon]

standing on the beach looking at a wave rolling in, a child might observe that the wave is made of seawater, but a deeper insight says the the wave is not defined by the particles of seawater it is currently comprised of, rather that the seawater is a medium for the transport of the wave, which itself is something less tangible. Lifeforms are like that, constantly rolling through the cosmos wherever a suitable medium persists

The wave is being observed, but what is the observer?  Can it really be compared to the wave it is observing?  The observer is much more than a transient pattern of particles.

I agree the wave analogy is simple.  A lifeform is clearly vastly more complex than a simple longitudinal energy wave. Its all about degrees of complexity