Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

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.

You are again making up a decision here that makes no sense, given you claims of lack of explanation for consciousness. You seem to be arguing that a dog or a car is essentially a computer, and also that instinct is merely programming, by simple assertion. The data doesn't seem to back that up and you have already accepted that you can get into another animal's mind, while sidestepping the issue of hard solipsism. You need to base your position on something more than confused contradictory top down statements.

[Leonard James]

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.

Since conscious interpretation of data is clearly an advantage for survival and reproduction, the obvious conclusion is that it evolved, like all other abilities.

[wigginhall]

Is it the case that we can construct simulations of animal awareness and responses?   I doubt that.  Ah well, it's crucial to AB's case that there are unconscious animals and conscious humans, and this is a huge difference, explained by God coming along with a big syringe, marked 'soul' or 'awareness' and injecting each foetus with this.

There, that wasn't too difficult, was it?   

Or, in other words, we don't know, therefore God.   It is a really pathetic argument; how incredible to see Christian polemic reduced to this Janet and John type approach.   It's pathetic and bathetic. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

Bathetic, a sugary type of pathetic, bathetic Christianity!!

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Well, I mean, it's an anti-climax.   

[Nearly Sane]

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.

Of course, the mention of bats in this context leads to Nagel's paper, 'What is it like to be a bat?', which on the one hand is something that might be seized upon by those who want to use consciousness as a means of fighting off the process of reductionism but at the same time  causes problems since it exactly differentiates bats (and other animals) from being mere programmes. Essentially if consciousness cannot be reduced to smaller parts, it then isn't recognisable to be identified.

This links into to the concept of zombies in thought experiments in consciousness, most specifically the work of David Chalmers, but as with so often here the problem of hard solipsism is an issue. While we can ignore hard solipsism on a day to day basis, and note science as a methodology specifically excludes it, it is ruinous to statements from non methodology positions.

There is a thread of theist posters on here who play with the idea of mystery, the problem of reductionism and the inability to ensue true objectivity as if these were useful for their case. Alan in this case, Hope in his relativism as regards science and Vlad passim. The problem is that those approaches is they are all versions of going nuclear as raised by Stephen Law in that in removing the privilege one might give to scientific or logical enquiry, it doesn't elevate religion to a better place, it destroys all idea of worthwhile enquiry, and makes any statement as regards truth nonsense.

[torridon]

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.

If you know programming then you should be comfortable with the notion that information is independent of its storage medium. A digital file can be stored in RAM, on a hard drive,  in the cloud, on tape, it can exist in serialised form on the wire, it is still the same information.  Life is essentially an information encoding system that uses organic matter as its underlying substrate, but there is no conceptual reason to suppose that some other medium could not support life, hence the endeavour to create machine consciousness. It is not the particles of matter that really define us, rather it is the information encoding that matter supports. There is no reason to think this principal is unique to humans, there is nothing unique about us at this level of analysis.

If you are interested, there is an introduction to the oft counterintuitive world of neuroscience on TV tonight by scientist David Eagleman, 9pm BBC 4.

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/dyp6b9/the-brain-with-david-eagleman--series-1---1-what-is-reality

[wigginhall]

NS wrote:

There is a thread of theist posters on here who play with the idea of mystery, the problem of reductionism and the inability to ensue true objectivity as if these were useful for their case. Alan in this case, Hope in his relativism as regards science and Vlad passim. The problem is that those approaches is they are all versions of going nuclear as raised by Stephen Law in that in removing the privilege one might give to scientific or logical enquiry, it doesn't elevate religion to a better place, it destroys all idea of worthwhile enquiry, and makes any statement as regards truth nonsense.

Yes, I said to Hope the other day, that his position (science is simply more subjective experience), amounts to nihilism, since it seems to flatten out all forms of enquiry, since they are all prosecuted by subjective humans.   This is daft, and also contradicts his own life, I would bet.   He does not reject the fruits of science!

It's a strange kind of relativism, which I find baffling.   Yet some Christians accuse atheists of super-relativism, especially in regard to morals.  But their position is worse, since nothing has any significance, as far as I can tell.

[floo]

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.

But that still doesn't mean any deity is behind the fact humans have evolved faster than other species.

[BeRational]

But that still doesn't mean any deity is behind the fact humans have evolved faster than other species.

We have not evolved faster, we have evolved differently.

All species on the planet at this time are all equally evolved to their situation.

Remember there is no plan, no end goal, no ladder to climb. We are all currently at the top.

[Nearly Sane]

NS wrote:


Yes, I said to Hope the other day, that his position (science is simply more subjective experience), amounts to nihilism, since it seems to flatten out all forms of enquiry, since they are all prosecuted by subjective humans.   This is daft, and also contradicts his own life, I would bet.   He does not reject the fruits of science!

It's a strange kind of relativism, which I find baffling.   Yet some Christians accuse atheists of super-relativism, especially in regard to morals.  But their position is worse, since nothing has any significance, as far as I can tell.

Yep, I saw that post and agree with you. This is what Descartes sought to avoid by building up his approach as far as possible from the ground up but he did it by occasionally assuming a bridge to cross gaps, without there being any bridge there. So the formulation of the cotton assumes a thing that is identified by the perpendicular pronoun without any reason.

[Nearly Sane]

But that still doesn't mean any deity is behind the fact humans have evolved faster than other species.

Can you stop with this frequent misunderstanding of evolution that humans are more/faster/better evolved that you trot out?

[Leonard James]

Can you stop with this frequent misunderstanding of evolution that humans are more/faster/better evolved that you trot out?

I think it is fairly obvious that Floo is referring to species that have undergone much more radical change (like humans) than those which haven't (like viruses), despite both being part of the same family tree of life.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it is fairly obvious that Floo is referring to species that have undergone much more radical change (like humans) than those which haven't (like viruses), despite both being part of the same family tree of life.

She may be, but she is incorrect in doing so, as is the idea of radical.


There is no concept of faster evolution in that sense.

ETA It also buttresses the exceptionalism being used by Alan, that humans are somehow different, so not only is it incorrect in terms of the science, it is playing the game of those who want to argue we are different to animals.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

I disagree, Floo is just like me, befuddled by evolution, it is a complicated subject and we are led astray by off the cuff remarks like, top of the tree, highly evolved, or that damned T shirt that everybody wears.

It has been promoted by more than one scientist ( Hawking is the most prominent ) that scientists should make science more user friendly, everyone should have a basic and thorough understanding of subjects like evolution.

Science effects us all, and it should be part of being a scientist that they make it more accessible to us less educated types.

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

She may be, but she is incorrect in doing so, as is the idea of radical.

I see! So you think that since life began the changes that produced homo sapiens are not more radical than those that produced viruses. Interesting!

[Nearly Sane]

I see! So you think that since life began the changes that produced homo sapiens are not more radical than those that produced viruses. Interesting!

In evolutionary terms, they aren't.

[Leonard James]

Dear Leonard,

I disagree, Floo is just like me, befuddled by evolution, it is a complicated subject and we are led astray by off the cuff remarks like, top of the tree, highly evolved, or that damned T shirt that everybody wears.

It has been promoted by more than one scientist ( Hawking is the most prominent ) that scientists should make science more user friendly, everyone should have a basic and thorough understanding of subjects like evolution.

Science effects us all, and it should be part of being a scientist that they make it more accessible to us less educated types.

Gonnagle.

Hi Gonners,

Since life began it has been constantly evolving. Millions of years ago, viruses appeared, and they were the forebears of the current viruses. However, other forms of life continued evolving, leading to the species homo sapiens, which only appeared about two hundred thousand years ago.

That is why, in a sense, we are more evolved than viruses, even though we are much younger.

I think that is what Floo meant.

[Leonard James]

In evolutionary terms, they aren't.

If you say so. 

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Gonners,

Since life began it has been constantly evolving. Millions of years ago, viruses appeared, and they were the forebears of the current viruses. However, other forms of life continued evolving, leading to the species homo sapiens, which only appeared about two hundred thousand years ago.

That is why, in a sense, we are more evolved than viruses, even though we are much younger.

I think that is what Floo meant.

We are not in any sense more evolved or younger in evolutionary terms. Further that does even make any sense in terms of floo's statement since we were talking about animals viruses.


She was just wrong to refer to faster, just accept it and move on.

[Nearly Sane]

If you say so. 

This is just the same ludicrous tripe touted by Hope about science just being opinion. Current evolutionary theory covers that this idea of faster doesn't make sense. Implying that it's just my opinion means you are happy to ignore that thinking.

[Leonard James]

We are not in any sense more evolved or younger in evolutionary terms. Further that does even make any sense in terms of floo's statement since we were talking about animals viruses.


She was just wrong to refer to faster, just accept it and move on.

Pedantry will never be dead while  you are alive, NS. 

[Leonard James]

This is just the same ludicrous tripe touted by Hope about science just being opinion. Current evolutionary theory covers that this idea of faster doesn't make sense. Implying that it's just my opinion means you are happy to ignore that thinking.

When it is quite clear what a poster means, being pedantic is nit-picking.

I repeat, the changes that have occurred to produce humans are much more radical than those needed to produce modern viruses.

[Gordon]

Alan seems to make hay as regards the notable difference that he sees between instinctive behaviour in animals and consciousness in humans, where for him the latter is of a different quality and significance than the former.

Thus, for Alan, that some snakes use heat sensing to identify prey, or that other animals uses certain senses or biology in highly specialised and automatic ways, such as birds flocking etc, is just how they are biologically 'hard-wired' to react: I think that summarises his view. So, to follow his line of reasoning, I'm just wondering why Alan doesn't see human consciousness (and leaving aside animal consciousness for now) as being no more than just a specialised biological function that our human brains are 'hard-wired' for: in essence, that consciousness is instinctive in humans. 

[Leonard James]

Alan seems to make hay as regards the notable difference that he sees between instinctive behaviour in animals and consciousness in humans, where for him the latter is of a different quality and significance than the former.

Thus, for Alan, that some snakes use heat sensing to identify prey, or that other animals uses certain senses or biology in highly specialised and automatic ways, such as birds flocking etc, is just how they are biologically 'hard-wired' to react: I think that summarises his view. So, to follow his line of reasoning, I'm just wondering why Alan doesn't see human consciousness (and leaving aside animal consciousness for now) as being no more than just a specialised biological function that our human brains are 'hard-wired' for: in essence, that consciousness is instinctive in humans.

It is because he has brainwashed himself into believing the Bible story of creation as fact.