Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Except in any other areas AB (presumably) wouldn’t accept the broken reasoning he attempts for “God”, “soul” etc. He wouldn’t as examples accept my contention that the Earth is flat if I could find lots of people who agreed with me, nor that leprechauns are real because if they weren’t no-one would be musical, and nor that Ra the Sun God exists because after I went for a nice sunbathe I won £10 on the lottery, yet these are the very same constructions in logic (the argumentum ad populum, the argumentum ad consequentiam and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy respectively, plus various others) he routinely deploys to argue for his “true for you too” god.

That’s the point. He can have any different perceptions he likes, but what he cannot do is to expect others to take those perceptions seriously when the very arguments he tries for them are ones he himself would reject in different contexts. This incidentally is the same point I’ve tried to explain to Vlad many times (albeit that it falls on deaf ears): a bad argument does not somehow become a good one because you happen to like what falls out of it.

AB’s response to the problem is a shout down logic as “man-made”, which is curious for several reasons. If he’s certain he knows – really, really knows – about the supposed “big picture” because he “trusts” his “faith”, whey then bother with bad arguments for it? If he thinks his conjectures are logic apt then all he need do is to find the logic that supports him that isn’t broken, and if he doesn’t then why not abandon the effort entirely and stick with just proclaiming his assertions to be true come what may?

It’s the weird half-way house he occupies that’s doing him no favours I think.

And again this seems to bear no connection with what I was attempting to consider. The idea that someone has 'the perceptions he likes' is as misconceived as AB thinking people choose beliefs. Surely you just have the perceptions you have? You cannot be suggesting one chooses them?

Note, as already covered, this isn't a question of being right and wrong , rather Alan's (and many others) posts seem to describe a reality that I just don't recognise. He seems to perceive consistency, where there is only a maelstrom. Also if my perceptions are that different maybe the communication is fundamentally flawed and the idea that we are talking about the same thing is wrong.

[Alan Burns]

To take an example, I don't know how anyone could look into the eyes of an orangutan and think it wasn't as similar as the bloke in the pub in terms of perception of self.

But the big difference between you and the orangutan is that the orangutan shows no evidence of thinking the same way when it looks at you.

[Nearly Sane]

But the big difference between you and the orangutan is that the orangutan shows no evidence of thinking the same way when it looks at you.

My perception is that it does. My perception is that you don't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And again this seems to bear no connection with what I was attempting to consider. The idea that someone has 'the perceptions he likes' is as misconceived as AB thinking people choose beliefs. Surely you just have the perceptions you have? You cannot be suggesting one chooses them?

You're missing it still. Perhaps he cannot choose his perceptions, but he can choose the arguments he makes to proselytise for them. And when even he himself knows those argument to be bad (because he too would reject them in different contexts) then by attempting them at best he's guilty of irrelevance, and at worst of lying.   

Note, as already coveted, this isn't a question of being right and wrong , rather Alan's (and many others) posts seem to describe a reality that I just don't recognise. He seems to perceive consistency, where there is only as maelstrom. Also if my perceptions are that different maybe the communication is fundamentally flawed and the idea that we are talking about the same thing is wrong.

Yes I know what he's trying, but it is a question of being right or wrong when we limit the conversation to the arguments he's attempting rather than encompass the conjectures at the end of them. As I said earlier, frankly I have no idea whether he's right or wrong about "God", "soul", "Satan" etc because I have no idea what he means by these terms (not least because nor it seems does he) so all I have is white noise. When he tries to tell me why he thinks he's right though using the language we do have in common - ie, the language of logic - then it's trivially easy to unravel his arguments like a cheap suit.

What may or may lie beyond the hinterland of his broken arguments though is not something with which I need be concerned, any more than I (or he for that matter) need be concerned with the different speculations of anyone else that also depend on bad thinking. Here at least I agree with you that it's not about right and wrong - it's just irrelevant.

[Gordon]

But the big difference between you and the orangutan is that the orangutan shows no evidence of thinking the same way when it looks at you.

How can you know that it isn't having some sort of comparable internal mental experience that is akin to the that of the person considering the orangutan? After all it does have similar biological equipment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the big difference between you and the orangutan is that the orangutan shows no evidence of thinking the same way when it looks at you.

As the orang utan shares much of our neural network architecture, exhibits "humanlike" behaviours (forward planning, creativity, apparent grief at the death of an offspring, deferred rewards etc) and as even its facial expressions are similar to ours when for example favourite foods are given to it or taken away, it seems to me to be highly likely that it thinks in similar ways to ourselves.

But that's just my perception, albeit based on reason and evidence and observation.

Other than that it contradicts your religious beliefs, what do you have to support your perception to the contrary?

[Alan Burns]

And again this seems to bear no connection with what I was attempting to consider. The idea that someone has 'the perceptions he likes' is as misconceived as AB thinking people choose beliefs. Surely you just have the perceptions you have? You cannot be suggesting one chooses them?

Note, as already covered, this isn't a question of being right and wrong , rather Alan's (and many others) posts seem to describe a reality that I just don't recognise. He seems to perceive consistency, where there is only a maelstrom. Also if my perceptions are that different maybe the communication is fundamentally flawed and the idea that we are talking about the same thing is wrong.

I think the talk of different types of perception is misleading.  If you are able to perceive anything at all, it is proof that you have within you a conscious entity of perception.  The problem comes in trying to understand how this entity of perception (you) can be defined in a materialistic way.  It is not just wishful thinking, but logic which leads me to conclude that it is not possible for the state of many discrete material entities (brain cells) to be perceived into one entity of awareness.  The neural network can certainly generate reactions in other material entities, but this is not perception.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think the talk of different types of perception is misleading.  If you are able to perceive anything at all, it is proof that you have within you a conscious entity of perception.  The problem comes in trying to understand how this entity of perception (you) can be defined in a materialistic way.  It is not just wishful thinking, but logic which leads me to conclude that it is not possible for the state of many discrete material entities (brain cells) to be perceived into one entity of awareness.  The neural network can certainly generate reactions in other material entities, but this is not perception.

Where in that assertion is the logic you tell us leads you to your conclusion?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As the orang utan shares much of our neural network architecture, exhibits "humanlike" behaviours (forward planning, creativity, apparent grief at the death of an offspring, deferred rewards etc) and as even its facial expressions are similar to ours when for example favourite foods are given to it or taken away, it seems to me to be highly likely that it thinks in similar ways to ourselves.

But that's just my perception, albeit based on reason and evidence and observation.

Other than that it contradicts your religious beliefs, what do you have to support your perception to the contrary?

But the behaviour of the orangutan, along with the behaviour of other animals, shows no evidence of the human ability to generate free thoughts and actions which are not instinctive or learnt from experience.  Yes, we can see many similarities, but they do not have the conscious free will of human beings.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the talk of different types of perception is misleading.  If you are able to perceive anything at all, it is proof that you have within you a conscious entity of perception.  The problem comes in trying to understand how this entity of perception (you) can be defined in a materialistic way.  It is not just wishful thinking, but logic which leads me to conclude that it is not possible for the state of many discrete material entities (brain cells) to be perceived into one entity of awareness.  The neural network can certainly generate reactions in other material entities, but this is not perception.

That's just your perception. Why do you think you can tell me my perception is wrong when you do not perceive that?

[Nearly Sane]

But the behaviour of the orangutan, along with the behaviour of other animals, shows no evidence of the human ability to generate free thoughts and actions which are not instinctive or learnt from experience.  Yes, we can see many similarities, but they do not have the conscious free will of human beings.

that's just your perception. My perception says that the orangutan does perceive. Why do you think ypu can say my perception is wrong?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the behaviour of the orangutan, along with the behaviour of other animals, shows no evidence of the human ability to generate free thoughts and actions which are not instinctive or learnt from experience.

Just asserting something like this doesn't make it a fact. Orang utans are highly intelligent, highly adaptive creatures that can readily tackle new challenges (like unscrewing a jar lid to get to food for example) that are new and have not been taught.   

Yes, we can see many similarities, but they do not have the conscious free will of human beings.

Something you cannot possible know to be the case, so why assert it? What makes you think that they don't experience the sensation of "free" will pretty much the same way we do?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You're missing it still. Perhaps he cannot choose his perceptions, but he can choose the arguments he makes to proselytise for them. And when even he himself knows those argument to be bad (because he too would reject them in different contexts) then by attempting them at best he's guilty of irrelevance, and at worst of lying.   

Yes I know what he's trying, but it is a question of being right or wrong when we limit the conversation to the arguments he's attempting rather than encompass the conjectures at the end of them. As I said earlier, frankly I have no idea whether he's right or wrong about "God", "soul", "Satan" etc because I have no idea what he means by these terms (not least because nor it seems does he) so all I have is white noise. When he tries to tell me why he thinks he's right though using the language we do have in common - ie, the language of logic - then it's trivially easy to unravel his arguments like a cheap suit.

What may or may lie beyond the hinterland of his broken arguments though is not something with which I need be concerned, any more than I (or he for that matter) need be concerned with the different speculations of anyone else that also depend on bad thinking. Here at least I agree with you that it's not about right and wrong - it's just irrelevant.

Sorry what does 'perhaps he cannot choose his perceptions' mean! Do you think he can choose them! How would that work? Can you choose  your arguments? How does that work?

[Gordon]

I think the talk of different types of perception is misleading.  If you are able to perceive anything at all, it is proof that you have within you a conscious entity of perception.  The problem comes in trying to understand how this entity of perception (you) can be defined in a materialistic way.

Why is that a problem? Whatever 'you' are involves 100% biology even if there is more to be learned about how certain bits work.
 

It is not just wishful thinking, but logic which leads me to conclude that it is not possible for the state of many discrete material entities (brain cells) to be perceived into one entity of awareness.  The neural network can certainly generate reactions in other material entities, but this is not perception.

Then show us your logic - btw, since you've just committed the fallacy of composition again this suggests that what you consider to be 'logic' might be flawed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Sorry what does 'perhaps he cannot choose his perceptions' mean! Do you think he can choose them! How would that work? Can you choose  your arguments? How does that work?

It means he can change his mind. I might perceive any manner of things, but when the reasoning I have to support the perception collapses then either I find more robust reasoning or I change my perception. 

[Gordon]

But the behaviour of the orangutan, along with the behaviour of other animals, shows no evidence of the human ability to generate free thoughts and actions which are not instinctive or learnt from experience.

That would be because it isn't human. However, given it has similar equipment it seems possible it may have mental experiences that are akin to humans - how could you exclude this possibility?

Yes, we can see many similarities, but they do not have the conscious free will of human beings.

Before we worry about orangutans, I'm not certain I have free will even though it conveniently feels like I do most of the time. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It means he can change his mind. I might perceive any manner of things, but when the reasoning I have to support the perception collapses then either I find more robust reasoning or I change my perception.

How does one change one's perception? How would that work?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That’s the point. He can have any different perceptions he likes, but what he cannot do is to expect others to take those perceptions seriously when the very arguments he tries for them are ones he himself would reject in different contexts. This incidentally is the same point I’ve tried to explain to Vlad many times (albeit that it falls on deaf ears): a bad argument does not somehow become a good one because you happen to like what falls out of it.
.

Since you bring this up it frees me to relate my perception which is that you lack the ''cojones'' to admit to argumentum ad ridiculum vis a vis the little chaps.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

How does one change one's perception? How would that work?

Simply enough. My perception might be that a monster lives under my bed. Someone might the show me that the noises I though came from the monster were n fact just creaking floorboards form when they went to bed next door. My perception "monster under the bed" would then change.

The point here though is that AB tries to use a common language when he attempts to reason his way to a "true for you too" god. Now you might argue that his perception that the equivalent of 2+2=5 is true for him and who are we to say he's wrong about that, but that's undone because he can also see that the same logic is wrong when it's applied to outcomes other than "God". That is, even if he does perceive the ad pop etc to be legitimate when used for "God", he can't perceive it differently when the identical logic is used for for leprechauns

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since you bring this up it frees me to relate my perception which is that you lack the ''cojones'' to admit to argumentum ad ridiculum vis a vis the little chaps.

Naively perhaps I live in hope that one day you'll finally grasp that the force of the falsification of the NPF does not rely on the ridiculousness or otherwise of its object. If you don't like leprechauns, just substitute any other supernatural claim. Indeed use "X" if you like – the force of the argument is just the same. That you happen to find the conjecture "leprechauns" as ridiculous as I find the conjecture "God" is a secondary matter.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Simply enough. My perception might be that a monster lives under my bed. Someone might the show me that the noises I though came from the monster were n fact just creaking floorboards form when they went to bed next door. My perception "monster under the bed" would then change.

The point here though is that AB tries to use a common language when he attempts to reason his way to a "true for you too" god. Now you might argue that his perception that the equivalent of 2+2=5 is true for him and who are we to say he's wrong about that, but that's undone because he can also see that the same logic is wrong when it's applied to outcomes other than "God". That is, even if he does perceive the ad pop etc to be legitimate when used for "God", he can't perceive it differently when the identical logic is used for for leprechauns

I think you are confused between understanding, though that causes issues and, perception. If you have a perception of a monster, talking about choosing to change that is meaningless. We are back at choosing a belief. How does that work?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Incidentally, you do realise I hope that the quote you posted ("We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain..." etc) doesn't support you. It merely says that they didn't know how the emergence of consciousness works - it did not say that emergence itself isn't the prevailing model nonetheless.

You could just as well say, "we have no idea how gravity emerges from the physical activity of the universe...". That doesn't though mean that the naturalistic model for it is wrong in principle, and nor would it give you licence to jump in with a, "well it must be invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings then", which is logically equivalent to asserting "soul" as your alternative to emergent consciousness.

Just recalling Sassy's original OP, if you do not want to believe in God, when you come up against something which is difficult to explain in a Godless world, you can use your God given freedom to use your God given gift of intelligence to think up some imaginary scenario, enlisting the help of pixies and leprechauns if needed, to try to explain how things happen in a Godless world.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think you are confused between understanding, though that causes issues and, perception. If you have a perception of a monster, talking about choosing to change that is meaningless. We are back at choosing a belief. How does that work?

I don't think so. You'll need to explain what you think the relevant difference to be between "understanding" and "perception" here, but it seems to me to be a difference without significance. If every night I hear creaking noises that seem to come from under my bed I can understand/perceive there to be a monster doing it. When further and better particular arrive though, I can change my understanding/perception. 

You seem to be using "perception" as if it means "first impressions that are then locked in" or something, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just recalling Sassy's original OP, if you do not want to believe in God, when you come up against something which is difficult to explain in a Godless world, you can use your God given freedom to use your God given gift of intelligence to think up some imaginary scenario, enlisting the help of pixies and leprechauns if needed, to try to explain how things happen in a Godless world.

This clearly meant something to you when you typed it, but I cannot guess what. Pixies and the like are just examples of where the logic you rely on for “God” can lead if you apply it to different conjectures.

If you don’t like the logic that falsifies you, engage with it. Dismissing it out of hand and then repeating the same fallacies just undermines whatever it is you’re trying to say.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I don't think so. You'll need to explain what you think the relevant difference to be between "understanding" and "perception" here, but it seems to me to be a difference without significance. If every night I hear creaking noises that seem to come from under my bed I can understand/perceive there to be a monster doing it. When further and better particular arrive though, I can change my understanding/perception. 

You seem to be using "perception" as if it means "first impressions that are then locked in" or something, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

then don't. I'm using perception as a base understanding about experience. I would suggest that has been fairly obvious here but then that's probably my perception. How do you change how you perceive things?