Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have more trust in science than the idea of some deity transmitting data!

While your trust in science might warm the hearts of fellow believers of scientism it is non sequitur to the discussion. God was never mentioned but like one of Macbeths crones you have conjured the supernatural.

[wigginhall]

The brain is a very complex machine through which the human soul perceives and interacts with this world.  If the machine is damaged, the perception and interaction will inevitably be impaired.

I know that you tend to avoid answering questions, if they are a bit awkward, so once again, if somebody is sufficiently brain damaged not to know who they are, according to you, they are still consciously aware?  Is this correct?

[Alan Burns]

I know that you tend to avoid answering questions, if they are a bit awkward, so once again, if somebody is sufficiently brain damaged not to know who they are, according to you, they are still consciously aware?  Is this correct?

Yes, but their ability to perceive the brain's memory cells would be impaired by the physical damage.

[ippy]

Yes, but their ability to perceive the brain's memory cells would be impaired by the physical damage.

My last post on this thread to the power of ten.

ippy

[Leonard James]

Yes, but their ability to perceive the brain's memory cells would be impaired by the physical damage.

Alan, are you really unaware of how weak this all sounds?

[Maeght]

Ok how do you show consciousness?
If it is merely a signal pattern it should be both recordable and playable.
If it is a signal pattern consciousness should be transmissible.
If consciousness is transmissible. How do we know that our consciousness aren't in fact somewhere else and the brain is merely a receiver.

That though is a small problem since because consciousness is experienced we can never scientifically accept reports of receiving consciousness directly since science discounts that type of evidence.

We can detect networks of brain activity when we are awake with different areas of the brain communicating and interacting, which are not detected when asleep. It seems likely to me that this ability that we call consciousness is actually that communiction within the brain. Scientific study is continuing into this of course but in the absence of any convincing evidence for any external consciousness then it seems a good explanation. The latter cannot be ruled out of course but in the absence of good evidence then it is no more than an unsupported hypothesis.

[Stranger]

Ok how do you show consciousness?
If it is merely a signal pattern it should be both recordable and playable.
If it is a signal pattern consciousness should be transmissible.
If consciousness is transmissible. How do we know that our consciousness aren't in fact somewhere else and the brain is merely a receiver.

That though is a small problem since because consciousness is experienced we can never scientifically accept reports of receiving consciousness directly since science discounts that type of evidence.

What do you mean by "receiving consciousness directly" and why do you think science would discount evidence of it...?

[ippy]

Where we, most of us could see the faults in Alan's "reasoning" and have now discussed them well past any breaking point and all he has left is more babble, more and more of it all meaningless babble; these last few posts of his don't really merit any consideration.

The man's gone past his ability to have any kind of reasonable discourse, I did at one time think there might be a spark of him making some adjustment to his extreme views there and someone a little open to reason, I was wrong about that.

If this is an example of how effective total religious indoctrination can make a perfectly ordinary sounding person behave, I think as a whole we should all take it very seriously about how we keep religionists away from our next generation of children for as long as is possible and I don't just mean the child abusers, I mean all of them.

ippy     

[SusanDoris]

I think I'm optimistic about that, Ippy. All young people these days have grown up with technology, which they know is designed and manufactured by humans; they are well aware of the fact that said technology needs satellites in orbit, they know - perhaps even take for granted - their awareness of knowledge about planets and comets obtained from close-up scrutiny, and this applies to young people all over the world, even if they do have religious beliefs as well.

 And when, say, on market days there is a person (always a man, actually!) with a megaphone shouting about what the Lord Jesus has done for us, there is never a crowd of eager sheep, waiting to hear.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, are you really unaware of how weak this all sounds?

I have always maintained that the soul is needed to perceive the content of our brain cells to bring this data to a single entity of perception, enabling our conscious awareness.  Without this perception, our brain would just function as a machine which reacts without the need or the ability of conscious perception, just as a man made robotic brain would function.  Lots of data will be present in the material brain, defined by the state of lots of individual brain cells, but the material model has no mechanism to bring this data into a single point of perception.  Science does not do perception, it only does reaction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

I'm still locked out of this effing site for no good reason, but while I'm away from home and on my mobile just to say that Pantsonfire boy is as always using his favourite straw man tactic when he accuses you of scientism. He's accusing you (wrongly) of saying that the findings of science are necessarily all there is, whereas what you actually said was that you 'prefer' the findings of science. Personally I go further - science is probabilistically to be preferred over just guessing, regardless of whether or not you gussy up that guessing with the term 'faith'.

I've never figured out whether he deliberately or inadvertently gets wrong every word of three syllables or more, but either way it's trolling so you can safely point and laugh at the stupidity/dishonesty.

[ippy]

I have always maintained that the soul must perceive the content of our brain cells to bring this data to a single entity of perception, enabling our conscious awareness.  Without this perception, our brain would just function as a machine which reacts without the need or the ability of conscious perception, just as a man made robotic brain would function.

Think you've lost it Alan, it wouldn't be some sort of loss of face or dishonour, if you gave it up, you'll only be getting through to others that have been indoctrinated in the way you have, in other words you'll not be making any progress, no new converts, more than likely putting people off probably not your aim.

These posts of yours are looking more and more desporate and plain silly.

ippy

[Leonard James]

Lots of data will be present in the material brain, defined by the state of lots of individual brain cells, but the material model has no mechanism to bring this data into a single point of perception.

It doesn't need a "single point of perception". The brain reacts to all external stimuli, and coordinates a reaction to them according to its information/memory bank.

Science does not do perception, it only does reaction.

Science gathers all the evidence and does its best to explain how the brain works. Given time it normally arrives at a feasible explanation for things. What it doesn't do is invent supernatural entities to explain them.

[ippy]

It doesn't need a "single point of perception". The brain reacts to all external stimuli, and coordinates a reaction to them according to its information/memory bank.

Science gathers all the evidence and does its best to explain how the brain works. Given time it normally arrives at a feasible explanation for things. What it doesn't do is invent supernatural entities to explain them.

Spot on Len, it'll be interesting to see how he twists, turns and lies to himself to get around another piece of common sense, this time.

He's had so much reason thrown at him all he has left is nothing more than another load of old nonsensicle twaddle.

He must be able to see it but his indoctrinated brain is holding him back from recogonition of the rational.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

It doesn't need a "single point of perception". The brain reacts to all external stimuli, and coordinates a reaction to them according to its information/memory bank.

Yes, but what perceives the information in the memory bank?

[Leonard James]

Yes, but what perceives the information in the memory bank?

If you are asking which particular part of the brain is involved in coordinating all the information it has (stimuli and memory) in order to react to them, I have no idea, and I don't think anybody has at the moment.

Neurological study is in its infancy as yet, but slowly it is unraveling the intricacies of the human brain. Bunging your god of the gaps in as an explanation is children's stuff.

[torridon]

The brain is a very complex machine through which the human soul perceives and interacts with this world.  If the machine is damaged, the perception and interaction will inevitably be impaired.

Baseless assertion.

[torridon]

I have always maintained that the soul is needed to perceive the content of our brain cells to bring this data to a single entity of perception, enabling our conscious awareness.

The fact that you have always maintained that just means you were always wrong about that and continue to be wrong.  Souls are spurious as what you describe is standard brain function anyway. You have two eyes and yet you have a single flow of visual experience and the same is true of all creatures.  The brain takes sensory input streams that are very different in nature, arriving at very different speeds,  and blends them seamlessly into a unified stream of experience.  Go into the woods today, do you see squirrels stumbling about as if drunk, which is what we'd expect in a creature suffering from double vision and unsynchronised hearing.  They move about with just the same elan, confidence and fluidity as do you or I, if not even more so.  Some spiders have eights eyes, do you imagine they suffer from octupal vision, not having a soul to integrate all that information ?

Without this perception, our brain would just function as a machine which reacts without the need or the ability of conscious perception, just as a man made robotic brain would function.  Lots of data will be present in the material brain, defined by the state of lots of individual brain cells, but the material model has no mechanism to bring this data into a single point of perception. 

Wrong again, and you must know this by now as I've covered this for you multiple times already. We do have a material model for the mechanism, it is known as the reticular activating system, the most important organ of which assembly is the periaqueductal gray, which orchestrates the cross brain synchronicity of multi modal sensory information flows into the single blended unified information flow that we call conscious experience.

Science does not do perception, it only does reaction.

I think you are going for some kind of record here, the most volume of wrongness in the smallest possible space. Of course scientists study perception, and have been doing so for decades already.  How do you think we have come to understand about peculiarities such as consciousness lag or subconscious pattern recognition ?  It is thanks to research into perception in cognitive science.

[Alan Burns]

If you are asking which particular part of the brain is involved in coordinating all the information it has (stimuli and memory) in order to react to them, I have no idea, and I don't think anybody has at the moment.

Neurological study is in its infancy as yet, but slowly it is unraveling the intricacies of the human brain. Bunging your god of the gaps in as an explanation is children's stuff.

But even when the neurologists discover which bits of the brain are active during perception, this still does not explain perception.  It will just identify some activity in the atoms and molecules which make up the brain.  Perception requires some entity which can identify and translate all this chemical activity into something meaningful.

[Leonard James]

But even when the neurologists discover which bits of the brain are active during perception, this still does not explain perception.  It will just identify some activity in the atoms and molecules which make up the brain.  Perception requires some entity which can identify and translate all this chemical activity into something meaningful.

i.e. the brain.

[Alan Burns]

Of course scientists study perception, and have been doing so for decades already.  How do you think we have come to understand about peculiarities such as consciousness lag or subconscious pattern recognition ?  It is thanks to research into perception in cognitive science.

All science has done so far is to correlate brain cell activity with conscious perception.  What I am implying is that science will never be able to fully explain perception in terms of chemical activity alone.

[Alan Burns]

i.e. the brain.

But the brain is just composed of the same electrons, neurons and protons as you will find in a lump of rock!  You are so much more than this!

[Leonard James]

All science has done so far is to correlate brain cell activity with conscious perception.  What I am implying is that science will never be able to fully explain perception in terms of chemical activity alone.

To imply any such thing is simply wishful thinking on your part, Alan, because you want your "God" to be the answer.

[Leonard James]

But the brain is just composed of the same electrons, neurons and protons as you ill find in a lump of rock!  You are so much more than this!

So you like to believe, but I'm afraid there is no evidence that such is the case. We are just an agglomeration of chemicals reacting to the environment.

I know that offends your self-appraisal, Alan, but it is the truth. 

[wigginhall]

I have always maintained that the soul is needed to perceive the content of our brain cells to bring this data to a single entity of perception, enabling our conscious awareness.  Without this perception, our brain would just function as a machine which reacts without the need or the ability of conscious perception, just as a man made robotic brain would function.  Lots of data will be present in the material brain, defined by the state of lots of individual brain cells, but the material model has no mechanism to bring this data into a single point of perception.  Science does not do perception, it only does reaction.

It's quite awesome how you pack so much wrongness into one post, as others have pointed out.   Let me just mention that the literature on perception, e.g.  visual, auditory, is voluminous.   However, I appreciate that your wall of ignorance is very important to you, as it enables you to preserve intact these pre-scientific ideas of yours.  Normally, I would recommend a couple of books to read, but there is no point really, as you are so determined to keep out any ideas which challenge yours.