Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

From Alan Burns Post 13874:

But the fact that many Corvids work in a similar manner indicates that their ability is a physical attribute which is inherited.

Take a cognitive study on bullfinches in the Barbados(kayello, 2013). 30 bullfinches were faced with something they'd never seen, a small transparent cylinder of food with a removable lid. Each bullfinch was presented with this situation, and the time measured how long it took the bird to approach the apparatus, make contact with it, flip the lid and feed on the seed. There were a variety of performances. One bullfinch took 8 minutes to suss it out, another bird went straight to it, and opened it almost immediately(7 seconds). 24 bullfinches were able to get at the food fairly quickly. Some birds were much more adept than others. In other words they showed a variable learning capacity which is a cognitive ability, just as humans, although in far more complicated  situations, show this same ability to a greater or lesser extent.

There are plenty of reports of individual birds employing unusual or novel behaviour e.g. a cowbird using a twig to pick through cowdung, herons using insects as bait, or vultures in Zimbabwe sitting on barbed wire fences next to minefields, waiting for gazelles to come along, hoping, no doubt, for a ready made meal.

[torridon]

Fascinating stuff.  Go Enki 

[torridon]

But the fact that many Corvids work in a similar manner indicates that their ability is a physical attribute which is inherited.

The stark difference with human creativity is that each human can display unique attributes of creativity which are not repeated in their peers.  If our creativity was dependent on the physical attributes of inheritance, we would all display similar forms of creativity.  But this is not the case, which would indicate that human creativity is not entirely defined by physical attributes, but by something non physical which is not bound by the deterministic rules of science.

Maybe the 'stark difference' is a difference of degree rather than a fundamentally qualitative difference.  All living things have a physical basis, all living things share the same mechanism for inheritance - DNA. At this level humans are no different to corvids or spiders or halibut.  Humans stand out for their creativity and inventiveness, among other things.  That doesn't mean that humans are the only inventive species.  How we get our greater creativity is largely down to a larger brain (other creatures have brains too don't forget) resulting in greater adaptability thanks to greater plasticity of mind.  All these things have a physical basis and inheritance is a determining factor to some degree.  Across all species, it is not just obvious physical characteristics that are inherited, it is also behaviours and tendencies of mind and we can see the truth of this in humans in that many things tend to run in families - a tendency to criminality, a tendency to religiousness, particular forms of creativity etc.  This reminds us that all aspects of mind have a physical basis, even to the extent that broad behavioural tendencies are encoded in the DNA we inherit.

[Alan Burns]

Maybe the 'stark difference' is a difference of degree rather than a fundamentally qualitative difference.  All living things have a physical basis, all living things share the same mechanism for inheritance - DNA. At this level humans are no different to corvids or spiders or halibut.  Humans stand out for their creativity and inventiveness, among other things.  That doesn't mean that humans are the only inventive species.  How we get our greater creativity is largely down to a larger brain (other creatures have brains too don't forget) resulting in greater adaptability thanks to greater plasticity of mind.  All these things have a physical basis and inheritance is a determining factor to some degree.  Across all species, it is not just obvious physical characteristics that are inherited, it is also behaviours and tendencies of mind and we can see the truth of this in humans in that many things tend to run in families - a tendency to criminality, a tendency to religiousness, particular forms of creativity etc.  This reminds us that all aspects of mind have a physical basis, even to the extent that broad behavioural tendencies are encoded in the DNA we inherit.

But there can be very marked behaviour differences in human families, even in identical twins.  Many characteristics will be inherited, as in other animals, but we still are able to display remarkable individual characteristics which are not apparent in other animal species.  The gift of free will derives from the soul, not the genes.

[Sebastian Toe]

But there can be very marked behaviour differences in human families, even in identical twins.  Many characteristics will be inherited, as in other animals, but we still are able to display remarkable individual characteristics which are not apparent in other animal species.  The gift of free will derives from the soul, not the genes.

The reason that they are not displayed in a similar way is due to the brain size/functional ability, comparatively speaking. Doesn't stop them having a soul though does it?

[Alan Burns]

How we get our greater creativity is largely down to a larger brain

From Wikipedia:

The largest brains are those of sperm whales, weighing about 8 kg (18 lb). An elephant's brain weighs just over 5 kg (11 lb), a bottlenose dolphin's 1.5 to 1.7 kg (3.3 to 3.7 lb), whereas a human brain is around 1.3 to 1.5 kg (2.9 to 3.3 lb).

[Sebastian Toe]

From Wikipedia:

The largest brains are those of sperm whales, weighing about 8 kg (18 lb). An elephant's brain weighs just over 5 kg (11 lb), a bottlenose dolphin's 1.5 to 1.7 kg (3.3 to 3.7 lb), whereas a human brain is around 1.3 to 1.5 kg (2.9 to 3.3 lb).

"Largely"

[torridon]

But there can be very marked behaviour differences in human families, even in identical twins.  Many characteristics will be inherited, as in other animals, but we still are able to display remarkable individual characteristics which are not apparent in other animal species.

Well yes, that is endorsing my previous comment, humans have greater autonomy and individuality than other species, this comes from a larger more complex brain and greater plasticity of mind.  The fact that we have an enlarged frontal cortex is encoded in our DNA so the roots of our potentialities are encoded and a fully developed human has greater ensuing cognitive abilities and flexibility

The gift of free will derives from the soul, not the genes.

Well no more and no less than eyesight or the ability to run. What you call free will is really what biologists refer to as agency, the greater degree of autonomy that derives from being able to override more deeply embedded instinctive responses with more considered ones. We can think through situations, imagine different possible futures, plan alternate strategies thanks to the greater cognitive abilities that are the enlarged prefrontal cortex in humans and there is nothing magic about our frontal cortex.  It is not as if biologists are dumbfounded by its origins, it is encoded in our DNA like everything else.

[Alan Burns]

... and there is nothing magic about our frontal cortex.

I fully agree with you in this.  The frontal cortex may be large and physically complex, but physical complexity alone will never define conscious awareness.  Information does not become information until it is perceived by a conscious recipient of that information.  Can you not see the impossibility of being able to define a conscious recipient of information within a collection of lifeless atomic particles?

[Gordon]

The frontal cortex may be large and physically complex, but physical complexity alone will never define conscious awareness.

There is no alternative: whatever consciousness is it seems to be a function of our biology.

Information does not become information until it is perceived by a conscious recipient of that information.

Even so, the details encompassed by 'information' can exist independently of the perception of it. For example, I know there are some coins in the pocket of my motorcycle jacket (currently hanging on a hook) but I'm not sure of the details of the coins in terms of value and number. Even so, the details of the coins is information even before I decide to count them: they would have the same combined monetary value whether or not I checked the details.
 

Can you not see the impossibility of being able to define a conscious recipient of information with a collection of lifeless atomic particles?

This is a textbook example of the fallacy of composition.

[Alan Burns]

There is no alternative: whatever consciousness is it seems to be a function of our biology.

Of course there is an alternative if you can accept the existence of your spiritual soul.  We may not be able to define the soul in physical terms, but we can define it by what it does in giving us conscious awareness and free will.

Even so, the details encompassed by 'information' can exist independently of the perception of it. For example, I know there are some coins in the pocket of my motorcycle jacket (currently hanging on a hook) but I'm not sure of the details of the coins in terms of value and number. Even so, the details of the coins is information even before I decide to count them: they would have the same combined monetary value whether or not I checked the details.
 

But the concept of monetary value only exists in human perception.  Outside human perception, the jacket, the pocket and the coins are no longer separate entities.  Their individual identities become meaningless as they just merge into the continuum of the material universe.   Information is not information until it is perceived.

[Gordon]

Of course there is an alternative if you can accept the existence of your spiritual soul.  We may not be able to define the soul in physical terms, but we can define it by what it does in giving us conscious awareness and free will.

So you're not defining it at all: you're asserting it and then assigning attributes to your assertion. How would you know you were wrong regarding 'souls'.

But the concept of monetary value only exists in human perception.

The value element is certainly a human construct as applied to these coins - that there are physical coins is though information of a different form (irrespective of whatever monetary value we assign to them).

Outside human perception, the jacket, the pocket and the coins are no longer separate entities.  Their individual identities become meaningless as they just merge into the continuum of the material universe.

That there is a 'something', and that you know there is a 'something' - in this case two 'somethings': a jacket hanging in the hall cupboard with coins in the pocket - surely constitutes a form of information. The jacket and the coins are certainly separate entities even when not directly perceived. For example, you can't perceive my motorcycle jacket or the coins in the pocket, and from where I'm sitting right now the jacket is out of sight, but I'm sure we'd both accept that the jacket and the coins exist as entities even though we can't perceive them directly.

[Alan Burns]

That there is a 'something', and that you know there is a 'something' - in this case two 'somethings': a jacket hanging in the hall cupboard with coins in the pocket - surely constitutes a form of information. The jacket and the coins are certainly separate entities even when not directly perceived. For example, you can't perceive my motorcycle jacket or the coins in the pocket, and from where I'm sitting right now the jacket is out of sight, but I'm sure we'd both accept that the jacket and the coins exist as entities even though we can't perceive them directly.

Of course we can accept these things as separate entities, because we both have the gift of conscious perception.  Even if we can't see them directly we can still perceive them as entities in our imagination.  But outside our conscious perception they only exist as collections of atomic particles in this material universe.  There is nothing which can identify them as separate entities outside our conscious perception.

[Gordon]

Of course we can accept these things as separate entities, because we both have the gift of conscious perception.

You mean we both have brains that seemingly work.

Even if we can't see them directly we can still perceive them as entities in our imagination.  But outside our conscious perception they only exist as collections of atomic particles in this material universe.  There is nothing which can identify them as separate entities outside our conscious perception.

As far as I can see everything, including you and I, is a collection of atomic particles and those that we identify as 'somethings' we assign labels and descriptions to: so what? Non-manufactured things, such as some geological features that predate homo sapiens, were (discounting natural erosion) pretty much as they are now long before being perceived by humans.

[Shaker]

You mean we both have brains that seemingly work.

Steady on ...

[Walter]

You mean we both have brains that seemingly work.

As far as I can see everything, including you and I, is a collection of atomic particles and those that we identify as 'somethings' we assign labels and descriptions to: so what? Non-manufactured things, such as some geological features that predate homo sapiens, were (discounting natural erosion) pretty much as they are now long before being perceived by humans.

according to Richard Feynman,
information is only transferred if something exists to receive it. (from the book Don't you have time to think?)

my words;
If the universe consisted of a single atom of oxygen it would not be able to emit any information.
If two atoms of oxygen existed information would pass between them.

consciousness is irrelevant to the flow of information. However it was through human consciousness we discovered this.

[Enki]

From Wikipedia:

The largest brains are those of sperm whales, weighing about 8 kg (18 lb). An elephant's brain weighs just over 5 kg (11 lb), a bottlenose dolphin's 1.5 to 1.7 kg (3.3 to 3.7 lb), whereas a human brain is around 1.3 to 1.5 kg (2.9 to 3.3 lb).

And a cow has a brain one hundred times great than that of a mouse, but is it any smarter? Or a honeybee with a brain weighing a milligram has the ability to navigate as well as many mammals.

Elephant brains have three times the number of neurons found in the human brain(257 billion to our average of 86 billion), but 98% of them are packed into the elephant cerebellum. On the other hand, an elephant's cerebral cortex, which is twice as big as ours, has only one third the number of neurons found in our cerebral cortex.

I hope I don't bore you too much with the following, but ornithology is one of my interests:

Plenty of bird species(not all) show evidence of complex behaviour, including counting and categorising objects.(African grey parrot, pigeon). Erich Jarvis(a neurobiologist) suggested the following:
'About 75% of our forebrain is cortex, and the same is true for birds, particularly species of songbirds and parrots. They have as much cortex, relatively speaking, as we do. It's just not organised the way ours is.'

And the cells show similar characteristics(e.g. chemical neurotransmitters, nerve circuits). It seems that the connections between brain cells are vital for complexity of behaviour.

In 2014 neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel(that's a mouthful) and her colleagues determined the number of neurons and other cells in the brains of a variety of parrot and songbird species. They found, in her words, that they 'pack surprisingly high numbers of neurons, really high, with densities at least akin to what we find in primates.' And the above lady's team found that nearly  80% of a macaw's brain neurons, for instance, are contained within the cortexlike part of the brain, while only 20% reside in the cerebellum. This is very much the opposite of the ratio found in most mammals such as the elephant.

All of which suggests that, although the ratio of brain size to physical size may well be important, the detailed evidence of how an individual species' brain is constructed plays a much greater part in a species' complexity and behaviour.

[torridon]

I fully agree with you in this.  The frontal cortex may be large and physically complex, but physical complexity alone will never define conscious awareness.  Information does not become information until it is perceived by a conscious recipient of that information.  Can you not see the impossibility of being able to define a conscious recipient of information within a collection of lifeless atomic particles?

All particles are lifeless. All living things are made of dead stuff.  Life is a emergent property of biological systems.  Consciousness is just one aspect of life and it is ubiquitous in some or other form in all higher animals, just as is respiration, metabolism, cognition, memory.  If you can get your head around the notion of life being an emergent property of inanimate matter what is your problem with conscious perception also emerging from inanimate matter, it is the same principle ?

[Alan Burns]

All particles are lifeless. All living things are made of dead stuff.  Life is a emergent property of biological systems.  Consciousness is just one aspect of life and it is ubiquitous in some or other form in all higher animals, just as is respiration, metabolism, cognition, memory.  If you can get your head around the notion of life being an emergent property of inanimate matter what is your problem with conscious perception also emerging from inanimate matter, it is the same principle ?

I can see animal life as defined by deterministic biological processes, but the conscious perception, free thought and free will I experience in my own self are defined by something far beyond the limitations of deterministic biological processes.  I am a free spirit, free from the shackles of deterministic nature of our material universe.  I don't just experience life on this earth, I perceive it I interact with it, I am a window into this material universe, the one and only God created soul which is Alan Burns.

[Shaker]

... just like everyone else.

[Alan Burns]

... just like everyone else.

but not like everything else!

[torridon]

I can see animal life as defined by deterministic biological processes, but the conscious perception, free thought and free will I experience in my own self are defined by something far beyond the limitations of deterministic biological processes.  I am a free spirit, free from the shackles of deterministic nature of our material universe.  I don't just experience life on this earth, I perceive it I interact with it, I am a window into this material universe, the one and only God created soul which is Alan Burns.

We are animal life too, in case you forget, and the differences in autonomy is a matter of degree rather than a qualitative difference. When faced with danger, a hedgehog has a classic response, to roll up into a ball; humans have greater degrees of freedom than a hedgehog of course but because we can consider a wider range of responses does not justify us in throwing out our brain altogether as the decision making apparatus in our head.  It just means that our brains are of greater sophistication and complexity than a hedgehog's.  It is a matter of degree Alan.  Getting God seems to have given you utter tunnel vision on this issue.

[Shaker]

but not like everything else!

That's the same as saying that cheetahs aren't like everything else. Well, no, they're not - they can run at 60 mph and you can't.

The amount of anthropocentrism in your posts, as well as being utterly blind to reality (needless to say), is laughable and, in the end, rather pitiable in its desperation.

[Alan Burns]

The amount of anthropocentrism in your posts .......

Humans would appear to be the only species capable of anthropocentrism, which somewhat justifies the term.  No other species but humans are capable of investigating the nature of the universe or other species, so why not anthropocentrism?

[Shaker]

Humans would appear to be the only species capable of anthropocentrism, which somewhat justifies the term.  No other species but humans are capable of investigating the nature of the universe or other species, so why not anthropocentrism?

The circularity of this car crash of a post is making me dizzy. I need a lie down.

Bats are the only creatures which can emit sounds of 120 dB at 200 kHz (equivalent to a smoke alarm 10cm from your ear). They dislocate the bones of the inner ear in 2-6 milliseconds to avoid deafening themselves. Why is this not more impressive than "investigating the nature of the universe"?