Searching for GOD...

[floo]

With the help of your human soul.

The brain and so called 'soul' are one and the same!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the barrier is that there is no material definition of how conscious awareness works.  It is not possible to define an entity of awareness by a series of physical reactions.  Externally perceived material complexity does not define awareness. There is a lot of complexity in the computer generating these words on your screen.  There is much more complexity in the way the visual image on the screen gets transmitted through your eyes and into your physical brain cells, and then decoding the data into some recognisable format, but what defines the end recipient of all this information?

First “no material definition” is not a “barrier” at all to a materialistic model for consciousness, any more than the Norse having “no material definition” for thunder was a barrier to it being a naturalistic phenomenon nonetheless.

Can you really not see your error in reasoning here? And if you can’t, why wouldn’t you apply the same mistake to your conjecture “soul” for which there’s no definition of any kind?

You continue to confuse “definition” with a necessary category difference, and you fail to grasp how much about consciousness actually is “defined" (or more correctly put, “understood”) in any case. It’s that already relatively extensive understanding that tells us that emergence is the most likely (indeed the only) explanatory model we have for it.

Second, I suggested earlier that your only argument is that consciousness looks really complicated to you in comparison with what a computer can do, and no matter how sophisticated the computer became it could never achieve self-awareness. This is clearly a very bad argument – the argument from personal incredulity in fact – but you’ve pretty much told us now that it’s all you have nonetheless.

Can you even see why it’s a bad argument?   

[torridon]

If you can produce an animal capable of contemplating the case for the existence or non existence of God I will concede that there is evidence for their conscious awareness.

That's not a definition of consciousness; you are just making stuff up now.

Try thinking in terms of selective attention.  When I go to my study to read, I am aware of the ticking of the clock at first, but after a minute or two it is eliminated from my conscious awareness.  I don't choose to ignore it, rather our conscious awareness is the product of a subliminal preconscious system of prioritisation and selective attention that helps us to stay alive at minimum cost. If we paid equal and full attention to everything coming in through our senses we would be overwhelmed by sensory overload.  Our brains do this for us without us ever having to be consciously involved in the process and our brains do it because all mammalian brains do it for exactly the same reasons and humans have a mammalian brain.  So of course all other animals that have eyes and ears must have some similar system for constructing and filtering the perceptions that originate in the sense organs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

That's not a definition of consciousness; you are just making stuff up now.

The "now" is redundant.

Try thinking in terms of selective attention.  When I go to my study to read...

I can picture it now - the crackling log fire, the quilted smoking jacket, the tasselled fez, the ginger tom asleep on your lap, the large pre-prandial snifter of something Scottish and oak-aged by your side, the serried ranks of leather-bound volumes collected in your youth on your grand tour and the library ladder to reach them, the rattle of pans from the kitchen below stairs and the promise of the Sunday roast to come...

Go on, confess - I'm spot on aren't I?

[torridon]

I can picture it now - the crackling log fire, the quilted smoking jacket, the tasselled fez, the ginger tom asleep on your lap, the large pre-prandial snifter of something Scottish and oak-aged by your side, the serried ranks of leather-bound volumes collected in your youth on your grand tour and the library ladder to reach them, the rattle of pans from the kitchen below stairs and the promise of the Sunday roast to come...

Go on, confess - I'm spot on aren't I?

Spooky that, Hillside is psychic, who'd a thought it 

[BeRational]

Try looking at this rotating hollow face mask and TRY to see what is really happening.

You will not be able to, because we do NOT see what is there, our brain constructs a model of what it expects to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0

[Sebastian Toe]

learnt experience,

What does that mean?

[Nearly Sane]

torri,

The "now" is redundant.

I can picture it now - the crackling log fire, the quilted smoking jacket, the tasselled fez, the ginger tom asleep on your lap, the large pre-prandial snifter of something Scottish and oak-aged by your side, the serried ranks of leather-bound volumes collected in your youth on your grand tour and the library ladder to reach them, the rattle of pans from the kitchen below stairs and the promise of the Sunday roast to come...

Go on, confess - I'm spot on aren't I?

Fezes are cool

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

Spooky that, Hillside is psychic, who'd a thought it 

It's a gift you know...

[Nearly Sane]

Try looking at this rotating hollow face mask and TRY to see what is really happening.

You will not be able to, because we do NOT see what is there, our brain constructs a model of what it expects to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0

While I mostly agree with the above, it's interesting how hard it is to avoid dualism in talking about perceptions here between our brain doing something that prevents us from seeing what is there.

[Alan Burns]

What does that mean?

For example, a performing seal which learns that doing a trick gets a reward of fish!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

For example, a performing seal which learns that doing a trick gets a reward of fish!

Where do you suppose this dog "learned" to stay by his injured owner?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dog-unconscious-owner-not-leave-jesus-hueche-tony-bahia-blanca-waiting-paramedics-pet-a7738181.html

[Alan Burns]

AB,

First “no material definition” is not a “barrier” at all to a materialistic model for consciousness, any more than the Norse having “no material definition” for thunder was a barrier to it being a naturalistic phenomenon nonetheless.

Can you really not see your error in reasoning here? And if you can’t, why wouldn’t you apply the same mistake to your conjecture “soul” for which there’s no definition of any kind?

You continue to confuse “definition” with a necessary category difference, and you fail to grasp how much about consciousness actually is “defined" (or more correctly put, “understood”) in any case. It’s that already relatively extensive understanding that tells us that emergence is the most likely (indeed the only) explanatory model we have for it.

Second, I suggested earlier that your only argument is that consciousness looks really complicated to you in comparison with what a computer can do, and no matter how sophisticated the computer became it could never achieve self-awareness. This is clearly a very bad argument – the argument from personal incredulity in fact – but you’ve pretty much told us now that it’s all you have nonetheless.

Can you even see why it’s a bad argument?   

I have never said conscious awareness really complicated.  It is you who claim that awareness is generated by physical complexity.  I have pointed out that it is not possible to define a single entity of awareness by material reactions alone.  It does not matter how big or complex the network of reactions - it is simply a physical impossibility for material reactions to perceive themselves, which is why you will never get a material definition of conscious awareness.

Your claim that emergence is the only explanatory model for conscious awareness is based upon the assumption that you comprise nothing but material particles, and if this assumption were true your claim would be correct.  But your awareness of your own existence shows that you are more than a collection of particles driven entirely by the deterministic forces of nature.

[Alan Burns]

That's not a definition of consciousness; you are just making stuff up now.

Try thinking in terms of selective attention.  When I go to my study to read, I am aware of the ticking of the clock at first, but after a minute or two it is eliminated from my conscious awareness.  I don't choose to ignore it, rather our conscious awareness is the product of a subliminal preconscious system of prioritisation and selective attention that helps us to stay alive at minimum cost. If we paid equal and full attention to everything coming in through our senses we would be overwhelmed by sensory overload.  Our brains do this for us without us ever having to be consciously involved in the process and our brains do it because all mammalian brains do it for exactly the same reasons and humans have a mammalian brain.  So of course all other animals that have eyes and ears must have some similar system for constructing and filtering the perceptions that originate in the sense organs.

What you describe is simply the way our brains interpret what is detected by the physical senses.  It is just data processing - filtering out unnecessary data before is passes on to the conscious area of the brain which is perceived by the human soul.

[Nearly Sane]

What you describe is simply the way our brains interpret what is detected by the physical senses.  It is just data processing - filtering out unnecessary data before is passes on to the conscious area of the brain which is perceived by the human soul.

So the human 'soul' doesn't know what is going on and is controlled in its perception by something that is unthinking. Did you really mean to take aim at both your feet with the elephant gun?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Where do you suppose this dog "learned" to stay by his injured owner?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dog-unconscious-owner-not-leave-jesus-hueche-tony-bahia-blanca-waiting-paramedics-pet-a7738181.html

I previously said that animal behaviour can be explained by instinct and learnt experience.  In this case I would put it down to instinctive behaviour.

[Gordon]

I have never said conscious awareness really complicated.  It is you who claim that awareness is generated by physical complexity.  I have pointed out that it is not possible to define a single entity of awareness by material reactions alone.  It does not matter how big or complex the network of reactions - it is simply a physical impossibility for material reactions to perceive themselves, which is why you will never get a material definition of conscious awareness.

Your claim that emergence is the only explanatory model for conscious awareness is based upon the assumption that you comprise nothing but material particles, and if this assumption were true your claim would be correct.  But your awareness of your own existence shows that you are more than a collection of particles driven entirely by the deterministic forces of nature.

I see you've decided of late to give the fallacy of composition some use - it doesn't help your case, Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB

I have never said conscious awareness really complicated.

Yes you have. You have consistently told us that it’s too complicated in fact “ever” for a computer to replicate it.

It is you who claim that awareness is generated by physical complexity.

That’s where all the available evidence points, yes.

I have pointed out that it is not possible to define a single entity of awareness by material reactions alone.

Yes, you have tried that red herring a lot. The whole point of emergence though is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Of course you wouldn’t find “a single entity of awareness” even if you examined every neuron separately.

If you knew the first thing about emergence though you’d realise that that's exactly what you’d expect. Why are you so determined to stay in complete ignorance of the subject your presume to dismiss out of hand?

It does not matter how big or complex the network of reactions - it is simply a physical impossibility for material reactions to perceive themselves, which is why you will never get a material definition of conscious awareness.

Yes I know that’s your assertion, but you never seem to get around to explaining why you think that. There’s overwhelming evidence for emergence as a phenomenon that’s pretty much everywhere, and there are huge clues about the building blocks for consciousness from systems much simpler than brains like termite colonies. Where on earth do you get the odd notion that emergence is fine and dandy so far as it goes, but there must be some magic barrier that stops it producing consciousness too? 

Your claim that emergence is the only explanatory model for conscious awareness is based upon the assumption that you comprise nothing but material particles…

No, it’s based on the observable fact that emergence is the only explanatory model we have for consciousness. If you think there are others though, then tell us what the evidence is, how they have been tested in the field, where they’re peer reviewed and published etc and we’ll see whether that stands up to scrutiny.

So far all we have from you is assertion – where’s the content?

…and if this assumption were true your claim would be correct.  But your awareness of your own existence shows that you are more than a collection of particles driven entirely by the deterministic forces of nature.

It shows no such thing. Why are you continuing with this entirely logic-free and evidence-free assertion?

[Nearly Sane]

I previously said that animal behaviour can be explained by instinct and learnt experience.  In this case I would put it down to instinctive behaviour.

As a bot response that is better than average. It looks as if the program has picked up the question in the post in this case and made a coherent if unjustified response. Doesn't in my opinion pass the Turing test as that isn't hard to to, but isn't like many of the bot's responses a failure

[Alan Burns]

So the human 'soul' doesn't know what is going on and is controlled in its perception by something that is unthinking. Did you really mean to take aim at both your feet with the elephant gun?

But the human soul must have the ability to consciously interact with the physical brain to focus on whatever it wishes and to drive our thoughts.  Without this ability we are just biological robots with no control of our own.

[Nearly Sane]

But the human soul must have the ability to consciously interact with the physical brain to focus on whatever it wishes and to drive our thoughts.  Without this ability we are just biological robots with no control of our own.

Here the bot has shown a fault in the program, and hasn't been able to respond to the point but has ended up responding with a generalised reply, adding in the fault of the argument ad consequentiam which seems to be a default response.

[Gordon]

But the human soul must have the ability to consciously interact with the physical brain to focus on whatever it wishes and to drive our thoughts.  Without this ability we are just biological robots with no control of our own.

Sounds like you've just 'defined' it thus - this 'defining' lark is easy-peasy: just 'define' then repeat ad nauseum but never never explain. That way you become your own authority.

I suspect there may be flaws though - but hey just you keep on repeating!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the human soul must have the ability to consciously interact with the physical brain to focus on whatever it wishes and to drive our thoughts.

Presumably it would do provided of course you were ever able to make a cogent argument for this "soul" in the first place.

So far though, all you seem to have is an assertion built on various fallacies - in this case the fallacy of reification.

Without this ability we are just biological robots with no control of our own.

Closely followed by the fallacy known as the argumentum ad consequentiam (with some pejorative language thrown in for good measure).

It's all pretty desperate stuff Alan.

[floo]

I wonder if anyone is running a book on how many more pages this thread will accumulate, with AB presenting his theory about conscious awareness and other posters pointing out the flaws in his argument?

[Robbie]

It will go on forever floo with the same stuff being rehashed.