Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Have you any sense of how dull your lying can be?

We know no such thing. How would you propose to eliminate the possibility of phenomena we lack even the imagination to envisage, let alone to investigate?

Nonsequitur to the question of how the universe ''came about'' if you say we don't know then that is definitionally a known unknown. We know we don't know. Introducing unknown unknowns is handwaving woo.

[Gordon]

Nonsequitur to the question of how the universe ''came about'' if you say we don't know then that is definitionally a known unknown. We know we don't know. Introducing unknown unknowns is handwaving woo.

How does 'don't know' equate to a 'known unknown', exactly?

[Nearly Sane]

How does 'don't know' equate to a 'known unknown', exactly?

We know that we don't know it. An unknown unknown is something we don't know we don't know.

[Gordon]

We know that we don't know it. An unknown unknown is something we don't know we don't know.

I get that in relation to 'unknown unknown' but Vlad says 'don't know' equates to 'known unknown', which implies there is something yet to be known - but it could be there is nothing yet to be known but we don't know our knowledge is complete (which sounds a bit tortuous I know).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nonsequitur to the question of how the universe ''came about''...

No it isn't because that wasn't the question.

Currently there are various hypotheses about that, but we don't know which if any of them them may turn out to be correct, what alternative explanations there might be, nor whether we'll ever know the answer, and nor even whether we'll ever be able to know with certainty that we do know the answer even when we think we may have it.
 

... if you say we don't know then that is definitionally a known unknown.

The fact that we don't know the answer to a question is a known unknown. What the right questions to ask should be on the other hand – questions we don't even know we don't know because we have no experiential or theoretical framework for them – are unknown unknowns. Remington Typewriters for example could not have envisaged that personal computers would make their business irrelevant – thus for them personal computers were an unknown unknown..   

The actual question you just avoided by the way was this: "How would you propose to eliminate the possibility of phenomena we lack even the imagination to envisage, let alone to investigate?"
 

We know we don't know. Introducing unknown unknowns is handwaving woo.

Try again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

I get that in relation to 'unknown unknown' but Vlad says 'don't know' equates to 'known unknown', which implies there is something yet to be known - but it could be there is nothing yet to be known but we don't know our knowledge is complete (which sounds a bit tortuous I know).

Vlad is wrong because he's confusing the fact of knowing we don't know something (a "known unknown") with the possibility of new information for which we have no practical or theoretical basis and so could not have predicted at all, even as a possibility. His category error is to conflate science (which is tentative and so can cope with unknown unknowns subsequently changing its models) with religion (which is certain, and so cannot eliminate the risk of an unknown unknown showing its assertions to be wrong).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn't because that wasn't the question.

Currently there are various hypotheses about that, but we don't know which if any of them them may turn out to be correct, what alternative explanations there might be, nor whether we'll ever know the answer, and nor even whether we'll ever be able to know with certainty that we do know the answer even when we think we may have it.
 
The fact that we don't know the answer to a question is a known unknown. What the right questions to ask should be on the other hand – questions we don't even know we don't know because we have no experiential or theoretical framework for them – are unknown unknowns. .

Yes but it is too late for you Hillside since you have stated we don't know about how the universe etc.
The rest of your post seems to demand mystery and acceptance of mystery....i.e. Woo. Doubly so since you put a question mark on perfectly legitimate questioning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

Vlad is wrong because he's confusing the fact of knowing we don't know something (a "known unknown") with the possibility of new information for which we have no practical or theoretical basis and so could not have predicted at all, even as a possibility. His category error is to conflate science (which is tentative and so can cope with unknown unknowns subsequently changing its models) with religion (which is certain, and so cannot eliminate the risk of an unknown unknown showing its assertions to be wrong).

I recommend this for a turdpolishing Oscar.......or the No smel prize.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes but it is too late for you Hillside since you have stated we don't know about how the universe etc.

Too late for what? "Don't know" just means that we have some hypotheses about that but – so far at least – nothing to provide an answer with any degree of certainty.

So?

The rest of your post seems to demand mystery and acceptance of mystery....i.e. Woo.

Again, why do you keep lying about this? There's no "mystery" in a "don't know", and the only woo here is "God".

Doubly so...

You've yet to demonstrate a singly so....

...since you put a question mark on perfectly legitimate questioning.

And he rounds off with a non sequitur - the triple Salchow of Vladdism.

What are you even trying to say here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I recommend this for a turdpolishing Oscar.......or the No smel prize.

Just out of interest, when you see an argument that undoes you how do you decide whether to ignore it, to lie about it, or to insult it?

These are I think the only options in your armoury of hopelessness. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

 His category error is to conflate science (which is tentative and so can cope with unknown unknowns subsequently changing its models) with religion (which is certain, and so cannot eliminate the risk of an unknown unknown showing its assertions to be wrong).

LOL
Here Hillside merely states why he thinks religion is merely failed science. He is the one making category errors.
What could make religion wrong? if we don't know,as he suggests............... that is a known unknown and Hillside is now treating the question of religion with the same brand of woo he treats fundamental scientific ones.

The challenge though Hillside is how do you account for the universe without God or magical thinking/special pleading about the universe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

Vlad is wrong because he's confusing the fact of knowing we don't know something (a "known unknown") with the possibility of new information for which we have no practical or theoretical basis and so could not have predicted at all, even as a possibility. His category error is to conflate science (which is tentative and so can cope with unknown unknowns subsequently changing its models) with religion (which is certain, and so cannot eliminate the risk of an unknown unknown showing its assertions to be wrong).

The unknown unknown which undoes God would definitionally be naturalistic so it could not, ever be an unknown unknown in the context you wish. Any suggestion that it is is magical thinking woo on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

LOL
Here Hillside merely states why he thinks religion is merely failed science. He is the one making category errors.

Still lying then. Why bother? Seriously, why bother? Hillside of course says no such thing - what Hillside actually says is that science is provisional and so can accommodate the risk of unknown unknowns; religion is certain, and so cannot. 

Maybe if you wrote it down a hundred times or something you'd be less likely to lie about it again?

What could make religion wrong? if we don't know,as he suggests............... that is a known unknown and Hillside is now treating the question of religion with the same brand of woo he treats fundamental scientific ones.

I wonder whether your posts here are so chaotic because they reflect your chaotic thought processes. You seem to have something at least in your mind, but the connection with any sort of reality when you try to express it is so tenuous and incoherent that's it's impossible to know what it might be. Maybe when you type something again you should try saying it out loud before hitting "Post" just to see how it sounds to your ears? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The unknown unknown which undoes God would definitionally be naturalistic so it could not, ever be an unknown unknown in the context you wish. Any suggestion that it is is magical thinking woo on your part.

He lied.

Again.

If you want to pouffe into existence a supernatural with no validating method of any kind, why can't anyone else pouffe into existence the possibility of a supernatural unknown unknown that would falsify whatever assertion you made for it?

Give it up Vlad. Seriously, you've crashed and burned once again here so why bother with more digging?

[ippy]

I get that in relation to 'unknown unknown' but Vlad says 'don't know' equates to 'known unknown', which implies there is something yet to be known - but it could be there is nothing yet to be known but we don't know our knowledge is complete (which sounds a bit tortuous I know).

Remember "Around the Horn"? The romntic couple, I know you know I know, I know you know that I know you know I know and on and on.

Shades of.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

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.

Just to clarify -
Conscious perception is simply awareness of information.
Making sense of the information and interpreting it is where processing comes in. 
And in the case of computers (and I would include animals), information is interpreted and processed and reacted to without any need of conscious perception.

[floo]

If our conscious perception is more refined than that of other animals, I bet it didn't start out that way when we first exited the primeval swamp.

[BeRational]

Just to clarify -
Conscious perception is simply awareness of information.
Making sense of the information and interpreting it is where processing comes in. 
And in the case of computers (and I would include animals), information is interpreted and processed and reacted to without any need of conscious perception.

Just to clarify some animals (other than humans) do process and interpret information consciously.

Glad that is now clarified for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to clarify -
Conscious perception is simply awareness of information.
Making sense of the information and interpreting it is where processing comes in. 
And in the case of computers (and I would include animals), information is interpreted and processed and reacted to without any need of conscious perception.

Just repeating an assertion doesn’t clarify anything Alan.

We know already what your opinion is. Really, we do – you’ve repeated WHAT you think over and over again.

As all the available reasoning and evidence from multiple sources is against you though, and as you’ve provided not one jot of either that would falsify these things the question you never answer is WHY you think as you do.

So far as I can tell, all you have is that consciousness looks really hard to you, and that as computers aren’t self-aware then not can brains be.

Is that it? Do you have anything else in the locker, or is that really all you can think of?

Don't be bashful – here’s your chance finally to tell us why you think as you do rather than just to keep repeating endlessly what you think.

Go for it!

[Gordon]

Just to clarify -
Conscious perception is simply awareness of information.
Making sense of the information and interpreting it is where processing comes in. 

So, to be sure I understand you correctly, you insist on a definite separation between an awareness of something and its identification and/or categorisation - why are these not one in the same? For example, as I look to my left I see a white wooden thing with bits of metal incorporated into it yet I immediately think of it as a Fender Telecaster guitar - in fact, it is the very one I own!
 

And in the case of computers (and I would include animals), information is interpreted and processed and reacted to without any need of conscious perception.

You may be right about computers, for the present anyway, but do professional naturalists agree with you on this as regards animals?

[Alan Burns]

So, to be sure I understand you correctly, you insist on a definite separation between an awareness of something and its identification and/or categorisation - why are these not one in the same? For example, as I look to my left I see a white wooden thing with bits of metal incorporated into it yet I immediately think of it as a Fender Telecaster guitar - in fact, it is the very one I own!
 
You may be right about computers, for the present anyway, but do professional naturalists agree with you on this as regards animals?

What I am saying is that if animals react to information in accordance with instinct and learnt experience, there is no need for conscious awareness of the information.  Conscious awareness is only needed when there are conscious choices to be made, rather than just predicated reactions.

[BeRational]

What I am saying is that if animals react to information in accordance with instinct and learnt experience, there is no need for conscious awareness of the information.  Conscious awareness is only needed when there are conscious choices to be made, rather than just predicated reactions.

They don't just react though, and some are consciously aware.

I thought I had clarified this with you?

Did you miss the clarification above?

[torridon]

Just to clarify -
Conscious perception is simply awareness of information.
Making sense of the information and interpreting it is where processing comes in. 
And in the case of computers (and I would include animals), information is interpreted and processed and reacted to without any need of conscious perception.

There is no evidence to support the notion that other animals do not have conscious perception.  That's just an empty belief with no justification.  It's really not cool to go around making up beliefs and then just believing them for no reason.

[Sebastian Toe]

learnt experience,

What is that exactly?

[torridon]

What I am saying is that if animals react to information in accordance with instinct and learnt experience, there is no need for conscious awareness of the information...

Learning requires consciousness, or at least, the learning of complex behaviours normally requires consciousness. Who will learn more effectively, the student paying full attention to lectures, or the one who sleeps through them ? Similarly in the animal kingdom, a hedgehog might roll into a ball without having to learn that, it is an instinctive behaviour.  But an Alaskan brown bear does not instinctively know how to catch salmon in the river,  it has to learn that and learning complex behaviours requires focused conscious attention.  This is largely the point of consciousness, it is the ability to direct varying levels of attention.  No bear would ever learn to catch fish using only subconscious levels of attention.