Searching for GOD...

[Brownie]

I found this:   http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/medin/documents/Leddon_etal_inpress_Nova.pdf
One animal among many?
Children’s understanding of the relation between humans and nonhuman animals

It is a bit long winded but does address what has been discussed on this thread.

[Leonard James]

The key word here is interacts.  To interact, the brain needs the freedom to exert its own will.  But this is not possible in a deterministic world where it can only react.

That is your mistake! We aren't living in such a world. We are living in a world that has evolved a life form capable of interacting with other life forms and the environment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alan is falling victim to what Richard Dawkins called the tyranny of the discontinuous mind - in other words, essentially, essentialism - which holds that there are rigid categories of things separated by hard and fast lines that can't be crossed.

Oh and the Archreductionist of Oxford would be a fine one to talk about that wouldn't he...................................You've been duped.

[Shaker]

Oh and the Archreductionist of Oxford would be a fine one to talk about that wouldn't he

Why wouldn't he be? As an evolutionary biologist it's pretty much one of the cornerstones of his particular field.

You've been duped.

The irony.

[torridon]

Even a 3 year old child can distinguish the marked differences between animal behaviour and humans.

Obviously there are differences in observed behaviours just as there diferences in physiology. Shaker's point is that such differences are the outcome of ongoing underlying continuities.  Evolution fashions species into particular shapes and characteristics determined by the availability of environmental niches, but at the fundamental level of DNA, say, or the eukaryotic cell,  there are no discontinuities. We are all diverse outcomes of the same processes.

[torridon]

The key word here is interacts.  To interact, the brain needs the freedom to exert its own will.  But this is not possible in a deterministic world where it can only react.

Interaction is a more complex case of reaction, essentially.  It might comprise an element of back and forth for example

[torridon]

Going back to worms, they have a certain awareness, for example, of light, different types of soil, they can move in a certain direction, and avoid attack.   But Alan is saying that brains can't produce awareness, only souls, so how does the worm do this? 

I suppose Alan is saying that humans have a special awareness, quite different from worms' awareness.  But we might surmise that as nervous systems (and brains) evolve, so does awareness?   We can think of the eye evolving, and thus, the nature of vision.

Yes, worms are good. They can sense soil conditions through their skin; they don't have ears but they are aware of the movement of other creatures in the soil. They don't have eyes but they do have photoreceptors in the skin so they can distinguish between different light levels.  They don't have a brain in the normal sense, but they do have clusterings of nerve cells, ganglia, that serve some rudimentary pre-brain function.

So, trying to answer the question - do worms have awareness - only serves to highlight the naivety in trying compartmentalise a complex continuous phenomenon like awareness into simple have/have not categories.  Better to ask - what is the quality, or the richness, of its awareness.

[Stranger]

It is not possible to show concrete evidence for supernatural phenomena.  All I can do is offer possibilities and likelihoods to help you discover the truth.

You at least need some reasoning or some evidence in order to construct plausible possibilities and likelihoods. If there is nothing to support an idea at all, it is (at best) a guess.

The key word here is interacts.  To interact, the brain needs the freedom to exert its own will.  But this is not possible in a deterministic world where it can only react.

You are still very confused about the material / deterministic / free will questions. I am forced to wonder if you've ever actually thought about it at all.

Logically there is no connection between material and determinism - the physical world may be deterministic or it may not. Since this "non-material" world of yours seems entirely without supporting evidence, we can't say whether that is deterministic or not, either.

Which of the worlds you place the bit of us that does the decision making, therefore, makes no difference; you can still only use deterministic and random elements.

Understanding how free will and conscious awareness might work is difficult but your approach seems to one of enormous self-importance and incredulity: I can't possibly be made out of all the stuff we see around us (despite the evidence that we are), so I must consist of something else, that I'm going to call magic non-material - and I won't bother to consider if it would actually make any difference.

[Shaker]

Yes, worms are good. They can sense soil conditions through their skin; they don't have ears but they are aware of the movement of other creatures in the soil. They don't have eyes but they do have photoreceptors in the skin so they can distinguish between different light levels.  They don't have a brain in the normal sense, but they do have clusterings of nerve cells, ganglia, that serve some rudimentary pre-brain function.

A couple of nights ago I was out walking the dog last thing (in darkness, with my super-bright LED torch) and looking carefully where I was going when the torchlight shone on a worm on the ground which, as soon as the light hit it, disappeared back down into its hole double quick.

I don't know what the Alan Burns explanation for this would be - sheer coincidence or something.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, worms are good. They can sense soil conditions through their skin; they don't have ears but they are aware of the movement of other creatures in the soil. They don't have eyes but they do have photoreceptors in the skin so they can distinguish between different light levels.  They don't have a brain in the normal sense, but they do have clusterings of nerve cells, ganglia, that serve some rudimentary pre-brain function.

So, trying to answer the question - do worms have awareness - only serves to highlight the naivety in trying compartmentalise a complex continuous phenomenon like awareness into simple have/have not categories.  Better to ask - what is the quality, or the richness, of its awareness.

Again, you are confusing awareness with reaction.  The attribute of awareness is not dependent or defined by any physical activity.

[SusanDoris]

Again, you are confusing awareness with reaction.  The attribute of awareness is not dependent or defined by any physical activity.

So how can a reaction occur without an awareness of something needing a reaction?

[Stranger]

The attribute of awareness is not dependent or defined by any physical activity.

So you assert - still not a hind of supporting reasoning or evidence and no hint either about what is different about this magic non-material world that makes awareness possible.

Just assertion after baseless assertion....

[torridon]

Again, you are confusing awareness with reaction.  The attribute of awareness is not dependent or defined by any physical activity.

You either didn't read the post, or you didn't understand it then. Awareness is not some magic property that comes out of nowhere; it is a function of multiple physical reactions to stimuli, and its particular quality also depends of the complexity and integration of different forms of such sensing.

[Stranger]

Awareness is not some magic property that comes out of nowhere...

I fear that is exactly what Alan thinks it is.   

[Alan Burns]

So how can a reaction occur without an awareness of something needing a reaction?

Reactions can be generated automatically from the data generated by sensory organs.  A driverless car can be programmed to react to the data obtained from its sensors.  I does not have any awareness in it, just automated reactions.

[Gordon]

Again, you are confusing awareness with reaction.  The attribute of awareness is not dependent or defined by any physical activity.

So, as regards your awareness of sound: say you hear a noisy motorbike (the best sort) that seems to be approaching fast as you cross the road, has nothing to do with mechanics of your ears, your auditory nervous system reacting, the subsequent processing of sound information by your brain or your learned experience of the risks suggested by loud engine noises as you cross roads?

I reckon that most of us in these circumstances would of course react, but where part of that reaction would be the assessment of risk: that is, using your brain to review your situation and consider what options are available to you - no souls required, just a bit of quick thinking.   

[Alan Burns]

You either didn't read the post, or you didn't understand it then. Awareness is not some magic property that comes out of nowhere; it is a function of multiple physical reactions to stimuli, and its particular quality also depends of the complexity and integration of different forms of such sensing.

From the dictionary:
Awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact

No mention of reactions or stimuli.

[torridon]

Is it a collapse of personhood or just a disconnection of consciousness from the concept of 'self' as in, say, deep dreamless sleep.  In dreams there is conscious awareness of other mental forms and forces.  In meditation there is, for want of a better expression, a centre of awareness which is disconnected from all mental forms and forces including what constitutes the self.  Complexity gives way to simplicity.

I can't talk to what mental states might be acheived through particular meditation practices, I've always been pretty useless at that, and you clearly have more insight than me there. 

My take is basically extrapolated from what we know about how brains work : a neural network based intelligence does not suggest the notion of an ontologically distinct self but rather an emergent self that arises out of brain functioning. In decision making for instance, there will not be a 'master neuron' acting as commander in charge, but decisions arise out of the competition between rival networks. The idea of a master neuron would not be feasible in terms of evolutionary biology either, it would be far too vulnerable to damage from injury or disease.  A neural networked 'person' however spreads its risk by curating multiple brain regions in any one activity and has the plasticity to conscript novel ares of cortex into use on the fly.  And it is not just the brain, with millions of interconnected neural networks in all major organs throughout the body all talking to each other, we are truly distributed inteligence units. Added to all that, we have memory retention, unique to each individual, a plethora of individual preferences, likes, taste, dislikes, prejudices all of which have a semi permanent character thanks to cell replication; added to all that we have the clever subliminal preconscious brain functiioning that synthesises and synchronises multiple disparate forms of experience into the apparently singular (but retrospective) narrative phenomenon we call conscious experience.  All taken together yields an undeniably compelling sense of self, something produced by brain functioning but which evaporates under hormonal damping down, as in sleep, or disappears when damaged by brain injury or disease such as dementia.

[Alan Burns]

So, as regards your awareness of sound: say you hear a noisy motorbike (the best sort) that seems to be approaching fast as you cross the road, has nothing to do with mechanics of your ears, your auditory nervous system reacting, the subsequent processing of sound information by your brain or your learned experience of the risks suggested by loud engine noises as you cross roads?

I reckon that most of us in these circumstances would of course react, but where part of that reaction would be the assessment of risk: that is, using your brain to review your situation and consider what options are available to you - no souls required, just a bit of quick thinking.   

The ear is a mechanical sensor which transmits a reaction to some brain cells.  Just as the eye will transmit visual information to other brain cells.  And our skin sensors will transmit further information to more brain cells.  In some cases there will be an automated reaction to some of this information.  But in essence we do not need to react to the information - we can just be aware of it.  But the mystery is how the awareness manifests itself, and where. 

[Shaker]

... the mystery is how the awareness manifests itself, and where.

What mystery? Thought you'd got it all worked out, Alan

[Gordon]

From the dictionary:
Awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact

No mention of reactions or stimuli.

Your perception of there being a sound involves both a stimuli (the source of the sound) and your reaction (your auditory system), and then the subsequent processing by your brain: for example, is the sound recognisable even if its source is invisible to you - and even then, and although you may recognise the sound, you may need to consider alternative sources.

For example, I'm walking through a shopping centre and I hear some Trad Jazz being played - I recognise the nature of the sound and even elements within the mix, such as there is a clarinet and also a banjo, but is there a busking jazz band playing live just out of sight or is it a recording? Even then, since I have some experience of jazz bands, before encountering the source visually I'd probably be able to recognise that the music is 'live' and not recorded because there is a difference in sound balance and tonality between instruments being played 'live' and recordings.

All this from ears, nerves, brain and experience - no souls required.   

[torridon]

From the dictionary:
Awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact

No mention of reactions or stimuli.

If you want to converse with any depth Alan, you are going to have to move beyond simple dictionary definitions.  Learn to scratch the surfaces of knowledge; strive to think what lies beneath the ocean.

[Gordon]

But the mystery is how the awareness manifests itself, and where.

It isn't a mystery, Alan, it happens in the organ between your ears: there is no alternative here since what we mean by 'awareness' is a mental phenomena that occurs within your brain, just as surely as it is your pancreas that secretes insulin and not your toenails.

The precise details of how the brain does what it does is a work in progress though, so 'don't know all the details' is a reasonable position to take. 

[Alan Burns]

Your perception of there being a sound involves both a stimuli (the source of the sound) and your reaction (your auditory system), and then the subsequent processing by your brain: for example, is the sound recognisable even if its source is invisible to you - and even then, and although you may recognise the sound, you may need to consider alternative sources.

For example, I'm walking through a shopping centre and I hear some Trad Jazz being played - I recognise the nature of the sound and even elements within the mix, such as there is a clarinet and also a banjo, but is there a busking jazz band playing live just out of sight or is it a recording? Even then, since I have some experience of jazz bands, before encountering the source visually I'd probably be able to recognise that the music is 'live' and not recorded because there is a difference in sound balance and tonality between instruments being played 'live' and recordings.

All this from ears, nerves, brain and experience - no souls required.

I think you have described very well the difference between automated reaction and conscious perception.

[Stranger]

But the mystery is how the awareness manifests itself, and where.

To an extent, yes there is a mystery in that we don't know the details. However, the presence of said mystery does not lend support to the kind of ill-thought-out, evidence and reasoning free assertions you have been making about it...