Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

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?

But that only works if you go nuclear - ie, any "base understanding" at all is fine, however inconsistently applied. I'm merely suggesting that that's going too far - if someone perceives an argument to be crap then he perceives that argument to be crap. He doesn't get to perceive it as crap sometimes and valid at different times. You may as well argue that if every second Tuesday he perceives the word "cow" to mean "table", who's to say his perception is invalid. The answer is intersubjective experience. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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.

I was just illustrating how you use your gift of intelligently controlled free will (which you seem to deny you have) to argue your case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was just illustrating how you use your gift of intelligently controlled free will (which you seem to deny you have) to argue your case.

You weren't illustrating, your were asserting. I know that my "free" will feels "free", but I also understand enough of the evidence to know that how something feels and how it actually is need not be the same thing. As you alternative conjecture is incoherent I'll stick with where the evidence leads I think. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But that only works if you go nuclear - ie, any "base understanding" at all is fine, however inconsistently applied. I'm merely suggesting that that's going too far - if someone perceives an argument to be crap then he perceives that argument to be crap. He doesn't get to perceive it as crap sometimes and valid at different times. You may as well argue that if every second Tuesday he perceives the word "cow" to mean "table", who's to say his perception is invalid. The answer is intersubjective experience.

which then begs the question throughout your posting that you assume your perception is right. The whole point is if the perception, and I take it that you now accept that choice of perception is ludicrous (given your continued lack of description of what that would mean) , is  something that is then where  you and AB may well not be talking about anything similar

[Nearly Sane]

I was just illustrating how you use your gift of intelligently controlled free will (which you seem to deny you have) to argue your case.

This again would be the be the 'free' that you have been unable to define in a logically coherent basis so is another meaningless post from you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

which then begs the question throughout your posting that you assume your perception is right.

No. All it assumes is that, if AB wants to try the common language of logic, he fails on two grounds: first because he relies on fallacies; and second because he apples broken logic inconsistently – he leans on bad arguments when they produce “God”, but rejects the same bad arguments when they produce something else.
 

The whole point is if the perception, and I take it that you now accept that choice of perception is ludicrous (given your continued lack of description of what that would mean)…

Surely the problem here is that you have failed to tell us what you mean by it, and of course it’s not ludicrous for the reasons I’ve explained – people have perceptions about all sorts of things that they sometimes change as new information arrives.

…is  something that is then where  you and AB may well not be talking about anything similar

Of course we may not, but (again) that’s not the point. Whatever that “something” may be is the outcome of his thinking. I don’t even get to that – the “thing” we’re talking about that he and I think is similar at least is the logic of the arguments that lead to his outcomes. Whatever he may perceive either that logic meets the codified descriptions of fallacies or it doesn’t, and whatever he may perceive he doesn’t get to apply identical arguments inconsistently when it suits. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No. All it assumes is that, if AB wants to try the common language of logic, he fails on two grounds: first because he relies on fallacies; and second because he apples broken logic inconsistently – he leans on bad arguments when they produce “God”, but rejects the same bad arguments when they produce something else.
 
Surely the problem here is that you have failed to tell us what you mean by it, and of course it’s not ludicrous for the reasons I’ve explained – people have perceptions about all sorts of things that they sometimes change as new information arrives.

Of course we may not, but (again) that’s not the point. Whatever that “something” may be is the outcome of his thinking. I don’t even get to that – the “thing” we’re talking about that he and I think is similar at least is the logic of the arguments that lead to his outcomes. Whatever he may perceive either that logic meets the codified descriptions of fallacies or it doesn’t, and whatever he may perceive he doesn’t get to apply identical arguments inconsistently when it suits.

The assumption of a common language is based on an assumption of a common perception. You appear not to have the second, so thinking you have the first is simply misconceived. Again as covered previously, if you see the world in a certain way the 'evidence' doesn't change it because  the 'evidence' is seen in the way you perceive evidence. Any luck in dealing with you the question of how you might change how you perceive things?

[torridon]

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. 

There are different flavours of perception, we can talk about subconscious perception and conscious perception for instance, with subconscious preceding the conscious.

[torridon]

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.

But that is just what the principle of emergence is all about. In the case of perception, we have multiple sources of underlying simple awareness such as the reactions between light and retinal cells, all being orchestrated into a grand singular stream of experience.  This is classic emergence, we see a singular integrated phenomenon emerge at higher levels of complexity from an underlying mass of simpler interactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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.

Nobody is guilty of your rendering of the NPF fallacy namely There is no proof that God isn't. therefore God.
That is just operating in a world of caricatures of your own devising.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. If you don't like leprechauns, just substitute any other supernatural claim.

What even how the universe came to be or is. That is inexorably supernatural on account of natural cause and effect.

[Gordon]

NS,

But that only works if you go nuclear - ie, any "base understanding" at all is fine, however inconsistently applied. I'm merely suggesting that that's going too far - if someone perceives an argument to be crap then he perceives that argument to be crap. He doesn't get to perceive it as crap sometimes and valid at different times. You may as well argue that if every second Tuesday he perceives the word "cow" to mean "table", who's to say his perception is invalid. The answer is intersubjective experience.

Perhaps it would be useful to understand how Alan is using the term 'perception' since I too think it has been used to imply understanding.

For example I understand as an item of knowledge that Edinburgh is currently closer to me than is Dundee but I wouldn't say I perceive this in the same way that, for example, I might perceive a change in the ambient temperature even though I have no information about what the temperature actually is. It seems to me that perception is more a sensory response and/or mental event than it is agreement or disagreement with specific facts or claims.

In addition Alan seems to talk about reaction as being different from perception when in practice it seems that perception is in part a reaction, whether it be sensory (I feel cold: time to put a jumper on) or mental, or a combination of the two. 

[Alan Burns]

But that is just what the principle of emergence is all about. In the case of perception, we have multiple sources of underlying simple awareness such as the reactions between light and retinal cells, all being orchestrated into a grand singular stream of experience.  This is classic emergence, we see a singular integrated phenomenon emerge at higher levels of complexity from an underlying mass of simpler interactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

But the "emergence" you describe is just something categorised as complex by an outside observer.  Internally it is just material particles reacting with each other.  Reactions are not awareness.  Awareness is the perception of reactions.

[Gordon]

But the "emergence" you describe is just something categorised as complex by an outside observer.  Internally it is just material particles reacting with each other.

You're wandering towards the fallacy of composition again.

Reactions are not awareness.  Awareness is the perception of reactions.

Would you not say then that perception, such as becoming aware that the lights have changed to red and you need to stop the bike, is part of the process of reaction? Your brain, having received the sensory input from your visual system, has just used other aspects of its functionality to  process these - it's just your biology doing what it does.

[Alan Burns]

You're wandering towards the fallacy of composition again.

Would you not say then that perception, such as becoming aware that the lights have changed to red and you need to stop the bike, is part of the process of reaction? Your brain, having received the sensory input from your visual system, has just used other aspects of its functionality to  process these - it's just your biology doing what it does.

A chess playing computer program can be trained to react to moves made by its opponent, but it does not perceive anything - it just reacts.  Animals can be trained to react to certain sensory inputs, but there is no way of knowing if they consciously perceive these sensory inputs in the same way as humans do.  In humans it is not just a reaction, but a perception followed by deliberate choice on how to react.  It is not an automated reaction as in computers or other animals.

[Gordon]

A chess playing computer program can be trained to react to moves made by its opponent, but it does not perceive anything - it just reacts.

As things stand, perhaps not permanently, that is all computers can do - but people are different so it looks like a category error on your part.

Animals can be trained to react to certain sensory inputs, but there is no way of knowing if they consciously perceive these sensory inputs in the same way as humans do.

Well some of them certainly respond to stimuli as we do - if you have a dog try calling its name - but since they aren't human then it would be unreasonable to expect them to react like humans. In noticed this morning that I don't have the ability to fly - but I saw a bird that could, albeit this bird can't play the banjo as well as me. You see - making direct comparisons between humans and some animals on specific attributes can be silly, but not so silly in relation to other primates that have similar biological equipment (e.g. orangutans).

In humans it is not just a reaction, but a perception followed by deliberate choice on how to react.  It is not an automated reaction as in computers or other animals.

Why is perception not an aspect of reaction? It seems to be that is some circumstances they can occur close enough together to give the impression of being part of the same process. How can you know that some animals don't exercise choice?

[torridon]

But the "emergence" you describe is just something categorised as complex by an outside observer.  Internally it is just material particles reacting with each other.  Reactions are not awareness.  Awareness is the perception of reactions.

No, perception is the reactions, synthesised, homogenised and aggregated up.

If you touch your finger on a hot stove then there is an awareness of burning sensation in your finger. If you walk from a dark room into the light, the change in conditions is registered initially on the retina. The nervous system captures all these little packets of sensory awareness and transmits them to the brain where they are sorted and integrated into a composite whole.  Perception is the outcome of that process, the emergent integration of all the sensory information captured through the senses. This is fundamentally what brains do - for a complex organism there needs to be a systems level capture and prioritisation of all pertinent information. Without this information processing, large scale organisms would not be viable; this is why brain development has gone hand in hand with the evolution of sensory capabilities. You need a brain to process and synthesise all that incoming information.

[ekim]

There appears to be at least two ways of using the word 'perception'

1The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
‘the normal limits to human perception’

 1.1 Awareness of something through the senses.
    ‘the perception of pain’

1.2Psychology Zoology .... The neurophysiological processes, including memory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli.
Oxford Dictionary.

[Alan Burns]

No, perception is the reactions, synthesised, homogenised and aggregated up.

If you touch your finger on a hot stove then there is an awareness of burning sensation in your finger. If you walk from a dark room into the light, the change in conditions is registered initially on the retina. The nervous system captures all these little packets of sensory awareness and transmits them to the brain where they are sorted and integrated into a composite whole.  Perception is the outcome of that process, the emergent integration of all the sensory information captured through the senses. This is fundamentally what brains do - for a complex organism there needs to be a systems level capture and prioritisation of all pertinent information. Without this information processing, large scale organisms would not be viable; this is why brain development has gone hand in hand with the evolution of sensory capabilities. You need a brain to process and synthesise all that incoming information.

Computers do information processing.  Humans do perception of information processing.

[Gordon]

Computers do information processing.  Humans do perception of information processing.

So computers and humans aren't the same type of thing - we know that already.

[Nearly Sane]

There appears to be at least two ways of using the word 'perception'

1The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
‘the normal limits to human perception’

 1.1 Awareness of something through the senses.
    ‘the perception of pain’

1.2Psychology Zoology .... The neurophysiological processes, including memory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli.
Oxford Dictionary.

This triggered me to read the really rather jolly article on perception on wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception.


The point I have been trying to make is that Alan's description of how he perceives both external stimuli and what it feels like to him to perceive, in effect his self perception, actually seem very different to how I feel it to be. It's not just a case of the external, it is closely about the feeling of being a perceiver. AB seems to self perceive in a much more constant and concrete way than I do and it seems to 'me' that this must have an impact on what you think.

That's why 'I' am suggesting that there isn't any choice in the effect of how an individual experiences perception upon their ideas. As someone with mild synaesthesia, I have tried to explain to people about the almost physical perception of numbers is like, but it's incredibly difficult and that's for what is a very minor difference. As already covered, I find it conceptually almost impossible to conceive how AB does not perceive perception in the larger sense when looking into the eyes of a fellow great ape. His perception seems to me to have a lacuna. Therefore it doesn't seem odd to me that we might come to different conclusions of what is the truth.

[torridon]

Computers do information processing.  Humans do perception of information processing.

Perception is information processing.

In case you missed it, Sane posted up a wiki link to Perception.  For your benefit, the very first line reads :

"Perception ... is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment"

True, computers do information processing, but don't (currently) do perception.

True, humans do perception, which is an advanced form of information processing. Also cats, dogs, kangaroos, haddock and penguins do it.  Anything with sense organs processes the information captured through those organs and this is what is called perception.  If you want to use alternate meanings for words it will forever cause confusion.

[wigginhall]

I think AB is perpetrating the homunculus idea, isn't he?  Thus, reality is on a screen, and a little man watches it.   This he calls perception, not the brain doing all the synthesizing and simulation.    Dennett calls it the Cartesian theatre,  which has the same spectator idea.   Cue loads of stuff about regression, as someone is presumably perceiving the spectator.

Maybe Ockham would be useful here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater#/media/File:Cartesian_Theater.svg

[Nearly Sane]

I think AB is perpetrating the homunculus idea, isn't he?  Thus, reality is on a screen, and a little man watches it.   This he calls perception, not the brain doing all the synthesizing and simulation.    Dennett calls it the Cartesian theatre,  which has the same spectator idea.   Cue loads of stuff about regression, as someone is presumably perceiving the spectator.

Maybe Ockham would be useful here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater#/media/File:Cartesian_Theater.svg

which again is part of his seeming denial of science. We know that what we perceive is subconsciously created and yet, AB is wedded to the idea that what we are conscious of is somehow unedited.


Again,I find that his idea just doesn't match up to my experience, never mind  the neuroscience. I am baffled how he perceives his thoughts as being under conscious control and how he doesn't see that that creates an infinite regression.

[wigginhall]

which again is part of his seeming denial of science. We know that what we perceive is subconsciously created and yet, AB is wedded to the idea that what we are conscious of is somehow unedited.


Again,I find that his idea just doesn't match up to my experience, never mind  the neuroscience. I am baffled how he perceives his thoughts as being under conscious control and how he doesn't see that that creates an infinite regression.

Yes, I don't see how anyone  can maintain the unediting idea.  We have concrete evidence that the brain synthesizes, simulates, and gets rid of redundant information.   If it didn't, we would be swamped,  But then there is an extra  bit for AB, the spectator.   As  you say, I am not aware of this.   Of course, he will chirp up, but what is this I?   I don't  think it's a little voyeur.