Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

What nonsense.  See previous post. All life forms process information, that is what life is, a phenomenon of energy and information processing. Any prey animal that could not parse the information captured through its eyes would very quickly exclude itself from the gene pool.

Life forms may process information in the same way as man made computers process information.  The information in question may be the image data transmitted from the retina of the eye to the brain cells which can process it in a similar way to image recognition software in a computer to induce a programmed reaction.  No conscious perception is needed for this because a man made computer could replicate everything in this scenario without the requirement for conscious perception.  Human conscious perception can identify what we call information as it passes through the system in order to induce a reaction.  But ultimately it is just a series of discrete reactions occurring in atomic particles.  The concept of information is only present in human conscious awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Life forms may process information in the same way as man made computers process information.  The information in question may be the image data transmitted from the retina of the eye to the brain cells which can process it in a similar way to image recognition software in a computer to induce a programmed reaction.  No conscious perception is needed for this because a man made computer could replicate everything in this scenario without the requirement for conscious perception.  Human conscious perception can identify what we call information as it passes through the system in order to induce a reaction.  But ultimately it is just a series of discrete reactions occurring in atomic particles.  The concept of information is only present in human conscious awareness.

Nope. Various species have essentially the same brain architecture as our own, and their behaviours clearly exhibit the characteristics of cognitive awareness - empathy, tool use, deferred reward planning etc. If you want to start top down with "God" and then validate that with the notion that our species is somehow fundamentally different from the rest, then fill the explanatory gap you've created for yourself with a "soul" about which you can say nothing at all, that's up to you. The rational approach though is to start bottom up - begin with the evidence and see where it leads.

And where it leads is to the conclusion that your conjectures are hopeless.

[ippy]

AB,

Nope. Various species have essentially the same brain architecture as our own, and their behaviours clearly exhibit the characteristics of cognitive awareness - empathy, tool use, deferred reward planning etc. If you want to start top down with "God" and then validate that with the notion that our species is somehow fundamentally different from the rest, then fill the explanatory gap you've created for yourself with a "soul" about which you can say nothing at all, that's up to you. The rational approach though is to start bottom up - begin with the evidence and see where it leads.

And where it leads is to the conclusion that your conjectures are hopeless.

Bravo Blue!

Ippy

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Nope. Various species have essentially the same brain architecture as our own, and their behaviours clearly exhibit the characteristics of cognitive awareness - empathy, tool use, deferred reward planning etc. If you want to start top down with "God" and then validate that with the notion that our species is somehow fundamentally different from the rest, then fill the explanatory gap you've created for yourself with a "soul" about which you can say nothing at all, that's up to you. The rational approach though is to start bottom up - begin with the evidence and see where it leads.

And where it leads is to the conclusion that your conjectures are hopeless.

But we humans seem to be the only creatures to recognise the concept of information and apply meaning to it, rather than just react to it.  This is why I say that the concept of information only exists in conscious human perception.  Outside human perception things just exist and react as part of the continuum of the material universe.

[torridon]

Life forms may process information in the same way as man made computers process information. 

And your justification for this assertion is ?

Let's unburden you from your surfeit of wrongness with a little thought experiment.  Go get yourself a human brain, a gorilla brain and a motherboard from PC World.  Put them on the table in front of you and examine. Do you really think the gorilla brain resembles the motherboard more than the human brain ?  Actually my guess is the gorilla brain and the human brain would be near indistinguishable to you. Humans brains process information pretty much the same way as other mammalian brains, why, because humans are mammals too.  If you don't believe me then take a walk in the street and find a woman and take a close look at those pleasant protuberances on her chest and ask yourself what the significance of them is.  Don't make it too obvious though, they don't like it, in my experience.

The information in question may be the image data transmitted from the retina of the eye to the brain cells which can process it in a similar way to image recognition software in a computer to induce a programmed reaction.  No conscious perception is needed for this because a man made computer could replicate everything in this scenario without the requirement for conscious perception.  Human conscious perception can identify what we call information as it passes through the system in order to induce a reaction.  But ultimately it is just a series of discrete reactions occurring in atomic particles.  The concept of information is only present in human conscious awareness.

So all the mammalian neural architecture involved in conscious perception only works in humans ? If that were the case how would we account for it still being there.  The principle of the economy of nature holds that whatever is not used will be eliminated and yet visual cortex is still present in all other mammals, just as if they could actually experience vision, and auditory cortex is still present as if they could hear.   You've really got a lot of thinking to do.

[Alan Burns]

And your justification for this assertion is ?

Let's unburden you from your surfeit of wrongness with a little thought experiment.  Go get yourself a human brain, a gorilla brain and a motherboard from PC World.  Put them on the table in front of you and examine. Do you really think the gorilla brain resembles the motherboard more than the human brain ?  Actually my guess is the gorilla brain and the human brain would be near indistinguishable to you. Humans brains process information pretty much the same way as other mammalian brains, why, because humans are mammals too.  If you don't believe me then take a walk in the street and find a woman and take a close look at those pleasant protuberances on her chest and ask yourself what the significance of them is.  Don't make it too obvious though, they don't like it, in my experience.

So all the mammalian neural architecture involved in conscious perception only works in humans ? If that were the case how would we account for it still being there.  The principle of the economy of nature holds that whatever is not used will be eliminated and yet visual cortex is still present in all other mammals, just as if they could actually experience vision, and auditory cortex is still present as if they could hear.   You've really got a lot of thinking to do.

But nowhere do you seem to acknowledge that animals just react to the information received from their sensory inputs, whereas humans can perceive the information in their conscious awareness and attach meaning to it, not just react to it.  Awareness is not a reaction.  It is conscious perception.

[bluehillside Retd.]

A,

But nowhere do you seem to acknowledge that animals just react to the information received from their sensory inputs, whereas humans can perceive the information in their conscious awareness and attach meaning to it, not just react to it.  Awareness is not a reaction.  It is conscious perception.

Presumably because - as he made clear - that's just an assertion on your part that not only has neither logic nor evidence to support it, but that flatly contradicts the logic and evidence we do have.

Why would anyone "acknowledge" a conjecture that's so plainly wrong rather than rebut it? Perhaps instead you should finally acknowledge the rebuttals that undo you and try to engage with them rather than just repeat endlessly your long-since falsified assertions.

 

[Sassy]

AB,

Nope. Various species have essentially the same brain architecture as our own, and their behaviours clearly exhibit the characteristics of cognitive awareness - empathy, tool use, deferred reward planning etc. If you want to start top down with "God" and then validate that with the notion that our species is somehow fundamentally different from the rest, then fill the explanatory gap you've created for yourself with a "soul" about which you can say nothing at all, that's up to you. The rational approach though is to start bottom up - begin with the evidence and see where it leads.

And where it leads is to the conclusion that your conjectures are hopeless.

How many other species hold funerals and believe in God or expect eternal life?

Cognitive functions are you talking about the ability to feed ourselves. smell, and even communicate? Can you swing through a tree like monkeys?  When it comes to human beings their cognitive functions are very different to other animals.

My daughter cannot put her hands down quick enough to catch herself if she falls. We automatically without hesitation or forethought put our hands out to save ourselves. My daughter due to her cognitive function problems cannot do this.

How we see the world and how animals see the world cannot really be compared because of the lack of ability to communicate.  Who knows why man assumes to know better than they actually do. Could be wishful thinking play a major part in the senses?

[ippy]

How many other species hold funerals and believe in God or expect eternal life?

Cognitive functions are you talking about the ability to feed ourselves. smell, and even communicate? Can you swing through a tree like monkeys?  When it comes to human beings their cognitive functions are very different to other animals.

My daughter cannot put her hands down quick enough to catch herself if she falls. We automatically without hesitation or forethought put our hands out to save ourselves. My daughter due to her cognitive function problems cannot do this.

How we see the world and how animals see the world cannot really be compared because of the lack of ability to communicate.  Who knows why man assumes to know better than they actually do. Could be wishful thinking play a major part in the senses?

Do a bit of revision Sass and come back later, only you've left yourself open to being put through the schredder with this one.

By the way, hope things are settlling a bit for you now, l wish you well.

ippy

[torridon]

But nowhere do you seem to acknowledge that animals just react to the information received from their sensory inputs, whereas humans can perceive the information in their conscious awareness and attach meaning to it, not just react to it.  Awareness is not a reaction.  It is conscious perception.

Not all animals react unthinkingly to external change.  Corvids for example are well known for their problem solving skills, this demonstrates that they don't just 'react' with instinct, they think things through to come up with novel solutions.  Chimpanzees outperform humans in memory based cognitive tests illustrating that thoughts pass through a chimp's mind with at least the same speed as in a human mind. You really need to get past this blockage you have about other creatures being insentient for some reason.

[Enki]

Not all animals react unthinkingly to external change.  Corvids for example are well known for their problem solving skills, this demonstrates that they don't just 'react' with instinct, they think things through to come up with novel solutions.  Chimpanzees outperform humans in memory based cognitive tests illustrating that thoughts pass through a chimp's mind with at least the same speed as in a human mind. You really need to get past this blockage you have about other creatures being insentient for some reason.

I can only add to this post. Some animal species are quite capable of forward thinking, of empathy, of learning, of, as you say, problem solving,  of creative solutions. The evidence for this is huge, and growing almost day by day. Even fruit flies have been demonstrated to show decision making capabilities.

[Alan Burns]

Not all animals react unthinkingly to external change.  Corvids for example are well known for their problem solving skills, this demonstrates that they don't just 'react' with instinct, they think things through to come up with novel solutions.  Chimpanzees outperform humans in memory based cognitive tests illustrating that thoughts pass through a chimp's mind with at least the same speed as in a human mind. You really need to get past this blockage you have about other creatures being insentient for some reason.

It looks like we will have to differ from what we believe can drive the unique human attributes of free thought, creativity, imagination, faith, love, compassion, thirst for knowledge  .....  in addition to their dreadful capacity to commit evil.

[Alan Burns]

I can only add to this post. Some animal species are quite capable of forward thinking, of empathy, of learning, of, as you say, problem solving,  of creative solutions. The evidence for this is huge, and growing almost day by day. Even fruit flies have been demonstrated to show decision making capabilities.

These fairly primitive behaviour patterns can easily be replicated by use of hard unconscious logic of the type used in, for example, computerised chess players.  Human attributes require the conscious awareness and free will of the human soul.

[Enki]

These fairly primitive behaviour patterns can easily be replicated by use of hard unconscious logic of the type used in, for example, computerised chess players.  Human attributes require the conscious awareness and free will of the human soul.

I beg to differ. Many of the behaviours of birds, for instance, seem to show a sophistication which science is still unravelling, from the 'kissing' of crows which seems to be some form of reassurance  to the cleverness of scrub jays which hide their booty from watching pilferers, from magpies which seem to recognise their own image to ravens remembering other ravens after a lapse of three years, from the metatool capability of the New Caledonian crow to the measure of distress shown by the greylag goose in response to social conflict involving either a partner or a family member. I suggest that a 'computerised chess player' is a bad analogy here.
Your last sentence, is, once again, simply your belief without any evidence to back it up. It seems you are once again following the dictat of Robert Owen, who said: "Never argue; repeat your assertion"

[Alan Burns]

I beg to differ. Many of the behaviours of birds, for instance, seem to show a sophistication which science is still unravelling, from the 'kissing' of crows which seems to be some form of reassurance  to the cleverness of scrub jays which hide their booty from watching pilferers, from magpies which seem to recognise their own image to ravens remembering other ravens after a lapse of three years, from the metatool capability of the New Caledonian crow to the measure of distress shown by the greylag goose in response to social conflict involving either a partner or a family member. I suggest that a 'computerised chess player' is a bad analogy here.
Your last sentence, is, once again, simply your belief without any evidence to back it up. It seems you are once again following the dictat of Robert Owen, who said: "Never argue; repeat your assertion"

And as I have pointed out before, all these examples of apparently sophisticated animal behaviour are common to each of the species, indicating programmed behaviour dictated by their physical genes.   Nowhere in the animal kingdom will you find the sheer diversity of behaviour and variety of personality, even within family groups, as you would expect from the spirit of each human soul freed from the shackles of deterministic control.

[Sebastian Toe]

And as I have pointed out before, all these examples of apparently sophisticated animal behaviour are common to each of the species, indicating programmed behaviour dictated by their physical genes.   Nowhere in the animal kingdom will you find the sheer diversity of behaviour and variety of personality, even within family groups, as you would expect from the spirit of each human soul freed from the shackles of deterministic control.

But as you have admitted yourself, humans who have brain impairment cannot display the full range of 'free will' as those who don't.  Therefore it is not unreasonable to believe that animals also have a soul, it's only their comparatively less complicated brains which prevent them from being able to display the full range of their soul's 'free will'.

[torridon]

It looks like we will have to differ from what we believe can drive the unique human attributes of free thought, creativity, imagination, faith, love, compassion, thirst for knowledge  .....  in addition to their dreadful capacity to commit evil.

That is a non-sequitur. We were simply pointing out the falsehood in your assertion that all non-human animals merely react unthinkingly to events.  Clearly cognitive abilities vary from species to species and from individual to individual and the way that the fundamental drivers of the needs for food, procreation, survival play out will vary accordingly. Humans are not the only species to have developed cooperation, intelligence, self-awareness, learning abilities and so forth, these attributes are present in varying degrees throughout the animal kingdom.  Your continued inference that all other creatures are essentially insentient unthinking biological machines is elitist and ignorant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It looks like we will have to differ from what we believe can drive the unique human attributes of free thought, creativity, imagination, faith, love, compassion, thirst for knowledge  .....  in addition to their dreadful capacity to commit evil.

These things aren’t “unique” to our species at all. Even a cursory review of the behaviours of chimps, elephants, dolphins, crows and magpies and many other species will tell you that. Elephants for example will show every sign of grieving when a member of the herd dies – they return often to the body, they shed tears, they even try to bury the corpse. In short, like us they emote.   

These fairly primitive behaviour patterns can easily be replicated by use of hard unconscious logic of the type used in, for example, computerised chess players.  Human attributes require the conscious awareness and free will of the human soul.

That’s both utter nonsense (computer software is a long way from replicating the behavioural complexity of many species) and logically broken – even if software could one day work its way up the species it can “replicate”, there’s no inherent reason for it not to be able to do so for our species too.

And as I have pointed out before, all these examples of apparently sophisticated animal behaviour are common to each of the species, indicating programmed behaviour dictated by their physical genes.

Of course they’re not – geographically diverse “killer” whale pods for example will exhibit very different hunting strategies. They’re not “programmed” at all – they’ve learned and adapted to develop new and sophisticated behaviours.

Nowhere in the animal kingdom will you find the sheer diversity of behaviour and variety of personality, even within family groups, as you would expect from the spirit of each human soul freed from the shackles of deterministic control.

Seriously? Imagine for a moment that there were no people, but all the other species remained. Do you think a (not very thoughtful) chimp would be saying, “look at all those other creatures – they’re way behind me in terms of creativity etc. After all, all a goldfish can do is swim around whereas I’m special – really special! Look, I can make tools, use language, do all sorts of fancy stuff. That must mean then that I have a “soul” to do all the clever bits as I can’t for one moment imagine how else that works.”

And there’s your problem. The difference between us and the chimps is just the comparatively greater layers of complexity we’ve evolved, just as the difference between the chimp and the goldfish is the comparatively greater layers of complexity that he’s evolved. That chimps make hammers and anvils and we make satellites doesn’t mean there’s some mystical magic ingredient that differentiates us – it just means that we’re a bit further along the path of complexity. Conceptually, you and I are in other words little more than chimps in shoes.

Thinking otherwise is just retro-fitting an answer – “soul” – into an explanatory gap you’ve had to create for yourself to validate your religious beliefs. It’s a top down post rationalisation however much you kid yourself that it’s actually a bottom up explanation for an observed phenomenon.

[ekim]

Until somebody defines what they mean by 'soul', I think the discussion will go round in circles.
I believe the word 'soul' was used to cover several different Hebrew words of different meaning e.g. yachiyd - uniqueness (sole in the other sense), tselem - a kind of self image, nephesh - instincts, appetites, drives which we share with the animal world, and - neshama - human mind but with alleged divine inspirational qualities (similar to the New Testament 'psyche' concept).

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That’s both utter nonsense (computer software is a long way from replicating the behavioural complexity of many species) and logically broken – even if software could one day work its way up the species it can “replicate”, there’s no inherent reason for it not to be able to do so for our species too.

And if a computer did manage to replicate human type behaviour, it would be just mimicking the conscious awareness of humans with no internal awareness of its own.

Of course they’re not – geographically diverse “killer” whale pods for example will exhibit very different hunting strategies. They’re not “programmed” at all – they’ve learned and adapted to develop new and sophisticated behaviours.

I do not doubt the ability of species to adapt to a particular environment.

Imagine for a moment that there were no people, but all the other species remained. Do you think a (not very thoughtful) chimp would be saying, “look at all those other creatures – they’re way behind me in terms of creativity etc. After all, all a goldfish can do is swim around whereas I’m special – really special! Look, I can make tools, use language, do all sorts of fancy stuff. That must mean then that I have a “soul” to do all the clever bits as I can’t for one moment imagine how else that works.”

And there’s your problem. The difference between us and the chimps is just the comparatively greater layers of complexity we’ve evolved, just as the difference between the chimp and the goldfish is the comparatively greater layers of complexity that he’s evolved. That chimps make hammers and anvils and we make satellites doesn’t mean there’s some mystical magic ingredient that differentiates us – it just means that we’re a bit further along the path of complexity. Conceptually, you and I are in other words little more than chimps in shoes.

Thinking otherwise is just retro-fitting an answer – “soul” – into an explanatory gap you’ve had to create for yourself to validate your religious beliefs. It’s a top down post rationalisation however much you kid yourself that it’s actually a bottom up explanation for an observed phenomenon.

I think you have hit upon the definitive difference between humans and chimps - their spiritual awareness of their soul

[Gordon]

I think you have hit upon the definitive difference between humans and chimps - their spiritual awareness of their soul

In which case I'm a chimp.

[Alan Burns]

Your continued inference that all other creatures are essentially insentient unthinking biological machines is elitist and ignorant.

You seem to be making a case for other animals to have souls.

[Alan Burns]

Until somebody defines what they mean by 'soul', I think the discussion will go round in circles.
I believe the word 'soul' was used to cover several different Hebrew words of different meaning e.g. yachiyd - uniqueness (sole in the other sense), tselem - a kind of self image, nephesh - instincts, appetites, drives which we share with the animal world, and - neshama - human mind but with alleged divine inspirational qualities (similar to the New Testament 'psyche' concept).

we could start with the dictionary definition:
1.
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

[wigginhall]

And if a computer did manage to replicate human type behaviour, it would be just mimicking the conscious awareness of humans with no internal awareness of its own.I do not doubt the ability of species to adapt to a particular environment.I think you have hit upon the definitive difference between humans and chimps - their spiritual awareness of their soul

Could you give a few tips for the unsouled?  I've tried looking under the bed for it, and in the garden shed, all I found was an old lawn-mower.  Anyway, how can I find this soul thingy?   

[Gordon]

we could start with the dictionary definition:
1.
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

The key term being 'regarded': how come then I regard claims of 'soul' as being superstitious nonsense?