Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Wow.......you sound like the lovechild of Richard Dawkins and Basil Fawlty.

Only two people I admire ... what's your point?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only two people I admire ... what's your point?

Richard is mine, you oaf.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Wow.......you sound like the lovechild of Richard Dawkins and Basil Fawlty.

Given enough exposure to the bludgeoning obtuseness and incomprehension of Alan Burns, so would you!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Wow.......you sound like the lovechild of Richard Dawkins and Basil Fawlty.

That would be Hitchen.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Given enough exposure to the bludgeoning obtuseness and incomprehension of Alan Burns, so would you!

Have you stopped beating your Spanish Waiter?

[Shaker]

Dear Vlad,

That would be Hitchen.

Gonnagle.

I will not have this said about a slightly misspelt, rather lovely small Hertfordshire town with (back in my Hertfordshire days) a fine outdoor market near to the lovely old church near the river 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I will not have this said about a slightly misspelt, rather lovely small Hertfordshire town with (back in my Hertfordshire days) a fine outdoor market near to the lovely old church near the river 

http://www.hitchintv.co.uk/

[ippy]

in the post you were referring to me, so the confusion continues
[/quote

Go back to post 8748, yes I do get things the wrong way around from time to time like anyone else, but not on this one.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong!

Wrong!

Wrong!

None of the components parts from which an emergent property emerges can physically "accomplish" that property - THAT'S THE POINT!!!!!

Please, will you at least try to read something about it before posting again.

PLEASE.

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Of course I effing don't - all that's necessary for the purpose of this discussion is to show that fantastically complex outcomes can and do emerge bottom up from very simple components. Prima facie, there's no reason therefore to think that consciousness is an exception. 

I need a lie down...(wanders off, sobbing quietly)

Hope you're feeling better 

I just wanted to point out that it was the functionality of the arrangement of particles I was refering to - not the functionality of the individual particles. (see my original post)

For example the ventilation property of a termite hill is a physically defineable function. 

No matter how complex the emergent property is, its functions still need to be physically definable.

So until we can get a physical definition of how conscious awareness works, it can't be assumed to be an emergent property.

[Alan Burns]

To understand conscious awareness, we first have to understand that we are those particles; those particles you keep referring to in a third person sense. Try thinking (this is very crude) of it as each synapse being a single representational piece of awareness, that is what they are essentially, each synapse corresponds to some piece of knowledge or information about our internal state and external environment, and the emergent consciousness stream is the integrated and refined totality of trillions of pieces of such information. We commonly think of ourselves as flesh and blood, or as mammals or humans or lawyers, but at a deeper level, we are information beings, we are made of information, and our internal mental life, our conscious experience is what information flow feels like.  This is why mental things, as opposed to 'physical' things,  seem to be intangible, it is because mental things are essentially made of information, not matter.

If that's doing your head in, and I don't blame you if it does, try breaking down the big problem into smaller manageable chunks : try just thinking about a component of conscious experience - eyesight say - ponder on how it works, remembering that what you see when you open your eyes is not what is actually you front of you at all,  but an internal cortical representational sensation that is taking place in the occipital lobe at the rear of your brain.  To understand this, it is not going to help if you fall back onto thinking that there must be a soul inside that is receiving the sight experience and actually doing the seeing, because all animals can see, pretty much the same way, and do so apparently without the need for a soul or any other such magic.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

My problem lies with interpretation.  Data in our brains exists in some physical format, but to turn this raw data into information will need some form of interpretation or decoding.  As a computer programmer I can see how data (including visual data) can be used to induce specific reactions, but interpreting data into meaningful information is not something I can imagine in terms of particle physics.

It is quite possible that meaningful information can only exist in human awareness.

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks for the detailed reply.

My problem lies with interpretation.  Data in our brains exists in some physical format, but to turn this raw data into information will need some form of interpretation or decoding.  As a computer programmer I can see how data (including visual data) can be used to induce specific reactions, but interpreting data into meaningful information is not something I can imagine in terms of particle physics.

It is quite possible that meaningful information can only exist in human awareness.

I don't see how you can avoid other animals as processing 'meaningful infirmation'. If you go down your instinct route for that, then that would apply to our processing.

[Alan Burns]

I don't see how you can avoid other animals as processing 'meaningful infirmation'. If you go down your instinct route for that, then that would apply to our processing.

Other animals can certainly process information in order to generate instinctive behaviour, but processing information does not automatically attach meaning.

[Nearly Sane]

Other animals can certainly process information in order to generate instinctive behaviour, but processing information does nat automatically attach meaning.

What do you mean by 'meaning'? You see this is part of the problem with your position in that you assume so much that it makes it unclear what you are trying to say. You need to start from the bottom up to make your case, not from the top down.

[Alan Burns]

What do you mean by 'meaning'? You see this is part of the problem with your position in that you assume so much that it makes it unclear what you are trying to say. You need to start from the bottom up to make your case, not from the top down.

Take a written word on a piece of paper.  A human will take in this visual informaton and interpret the meaning of the word in their conscious awareness.

An animal will see visual information as geometric patterns - some of which it will react to by instinct, but it will not necessarily interpret meaning to the pattern - it will just react to it.

[Nearly Sane]

Take a written word on a piece of paper.  A human will take in this visual informaton and interpret the meaning of the word in their conscious awareness.

An animal will see visual information as geometric patterns - some of which it will react to by instinct, but it will not necessarily interpret meaning to the pattern - it will just react to it.

Now you are just asserting things, and I would suggest creating a huge problem by creating 'instinct' into a hugely complex programme that needs to take all possibilities that happen into account.

The actions that you see in other humans that you attribute to meaning are observable in animals but you are the one denying possibilities here and doing it because you make a top down assumption. In order to keep your position you have to say that when similar behaviour happens across the animal kingdom, that there are 2 separate explanations for it, and having no reason to do this split except for an assumption not backed up by the data.

As so often with people who make claims about knowledge they don't have a method to demonstrate, you are going down the route of 'you can't deny the possibility' and yet without a method make assertions denying other possibilities. You are so wrapped up in your argument from incredulity that you seek to shift the burden of proof while making simple assertions.

[torridon]

Take a written word on a piece of paper.  A human will take in this visual informaton and interpret the meaning of the word in their conscious awareness.

An animal will see visual information as geometric patterns - some of which it will react to by instinct, but it will not necessarily interpret meaning to the pattern - it will just react to it.

Animals do not react to stimuli in some zombie-like way. If I see a lion creeping up on me my brain is interpreting patterns of electromagnetic radiation into something meaningful - ie something that causes fear.  Likewise with an antelope, it's brain interprets light patterns into something meaningful - ie it generates fear in the antelope. There is no reason to suppose that this translation of raw stimuli into meaning differs fundamentally from species to species.

[Alan Burns]

Now you are just asserting things, and I would suggest creating a huge problem by creating 'instinct' into a hugely complex programme that needs to take all possibilities that happen into account.

The actions that you see in other humans that you attribute to meaning are observable in animals but you are the one denying possibilities here and doing it because you make a top down assumption. In order to keep your position you have to say that when similar behaviour happens across the animal kingdom, that there are 2 separate explanations for it, and having no reason to do this split except for an assumption not backed up by the data.

As so often with people who make claims about knowledge they don't have a method to demonstrate, you are going down the route of 'you can't deny the possibility' and yet without a method make assertions denying other possibilities. You are so wrapped up in your argument from incredulity that you seek to shift the burden of proof while making simple assertions.

I admit that my ideas can't be backed up with definitive proof, because we can't enter the mind of an animal.

But the transition from instinctive reactions to conscious interpretation of data is a huge step.

[Nearly Sane]

I admit that my ideas can't be backed up with definitive proof, because we can't enter the mind of an animal.

But the transition from instinctive reactions to conscious interpretation of data is a huge step.

We can't enter the mind of anything else. The processes that lead us to assuming other humans process information as you want to assert, lead us to think that would be true for other animals based on the experiments we carry out, and you deny this because of your top down approach. You are forced into denying the data of the methodology we have because of your assumptions.

Again it's a common issue with those that seek to use 'unexplained' things such as consciousness to then make assertions about it as if they had an explanation. Your statement here about it being a 'huge step' to move from instinctive to conscious interpretation is exactly that. If consciousness is as much of a mystery as you claim, then that statement cannot be sensibly made. You need to accept the full implications of your approach rather than using contradictory approaches to back up your top down assumption.

[Gordon]

But the transition from instinctive reactions to conscious interpretation of data is a huge step.

How do you know that (as in have knowledge)?

There may be differences between species as regards consciousness, as there are in relation to various senses, but I'm not clear on what basis these can be quantified, or even if they can be on any meaningful basis, in the absence of knowledge that would support the comparison you insist on making.

This sounds like yet another 'God of the Gaps' argument mixed with your personal incredulity: I can't explain this, so I've decided its inexplicable, therefore it must be God - so fallacy upon fallacy yet again.

[Nearly Sane]

I admit that my ideas can't be backed up with definitive proof, because we can't enter the mind of an animal.

But the transition from instinctive reactions to conscious interpretation of data is a huge step.

Oh and on a specific point, I think the formulation 'cant be backed up by definitive proof' is at best disingenuous. You aren't providing any evidence and are denying the evidence provided by the methodology we do have, while admitting you have nothing to replace it. You are not just 'gilding the lily', you are calling nothing a lily and then applying invisible gilt.

[ekim]

I admit that my ideas can't be backed up with definitive proof, because we can't enter the mind of an animal.

But the transition from instinctive reactions to conscious interpretation of data is a huge step.

It's more likely to be as a result of a series of small steps being repeated over time until it becomes an automatic reaction to an impressed mental form of a threatening object.

[Alan Burns]

How do you know that (as in have knowledge)?

Instinctive reactions to data are easily understood and can be replicated in man made objects such as computer simulations and robots.

Conscious interpretation of data is still a mystery in human knowledge.

[BeRational]

Instinctive reactions to data are easily understood and can be replicated in man made objects such as computer simulations and robots.

Conscious interpretation of data is still a mystery in human knowledge.

Lots of things are a mystery in human knowledge.

Would you advise that we ascribe them all to a god, or keep looking for an answer?

[Gordon]

Instinctive reactions to data are easily understood and can be replicated in man made objects such as computer simulations and robots.

Conscious interpretation of data is still a mystery in human knowledge.

Is it the case though that instinctive reactions are 'easily understood'? I don't know the science well enough to say one way or the other but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that, say, how bats use echolocation isn't exactly simple or has a direct parallel in computer programming.

Consciousness might not be fully understood, which is perhaps a little less dramatic than saying 'mystery', so I'd have thought that 'don't know, awaiting further evidence' would be what a reasonable person would say on this subject.
 

[torridon]

I admit that my ideas can't be backed up with definitive proof, because we can't enter the mind of an animal.

But the transition from instinctive reactions to conscious interpretation of data is a huge step.

Who is asking for definitive proof ? We cannot have definitive proof outside of formal logic disciplines, so in all other matters we follow the evidence, this is the next best thing. Behavioural evidence suggests that other animals have inner experience as humans do, therefore the brain whose structures we share is the organ responsible for converting external and internal stimuli into meaning, emotion, sentience etc.  What is your justification for thinking otherwise ?