Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

What makes you think that conscious perception is not another reaction?

O.

Because I can consciously perceive.  It does not need reaction - just conscious awareness of information.

[Alan Burns]

If you see something, that is conscious perception; if you hear something, that is conscious perception. Blind sight being an example of subconscious perception.

Computers can be programmed to recognise and react to graphical imagery or patterns of sound waves , but they do not consciously perceive it.

[Outrider]

Because I can consciously perceive.  It does not need reaction - just conscious awareness of information.

That sounds like a reaction to the information, to me. There is information, therefore there is sensory processing of that information, therefore there is awareness of that information... cause and effect and consciousness.

O.

[Outrider]

And can you imagine how this single most complex processing hub known to man can get generated from a microscopic DNA molecule which came into existence without any form of intelligently guided interaction?

I don't need to imagine it, I have a well-supported, heavily documented scientific theory which explains it fairly comprehensively.

No doubt you will quote the blind process of natural selection of randomly generated mutations which seems to be responsible for generating any conceivable amount of incomprehensible complexity.

So if you already know the answer... That you fail to appreciate the potential doesn't mean that it's not there, but even if you don't see it, and even if that possibility isn't there for you, that's still not any sort of evidence for the concept of a god or souls - it's just a lack of evidence for evolution.

You still need something to support the idea of souls, and that's lacking. You also need some sort of explanation for what it is that you think free will is free from, given that you don't have anything to suggest that it's free of the combination of cause and effect and random patterns.

O.

[torridon]

Computers can be programmed to recognise and react to graphical imagery or patterns of sound waves , but they do not consciously perceive it.

Current computers, yes, I agree.  However dogs and cats and ant-eaters and penguins do have conscious perception.  Anything with a sufficiently advanced brain does conscious perception, that is largely what brains do.  And in the future, maybe artificial intelligence synths will become conscious - conscious experience is information flows within a bounded system and there is nothing magic about carbon, other material substrates like silicon can support information flow.

[Alan Burns]

Current computers, yes, I agree.  However dogs and cats and ant-eaters and penguins do have conscious perception.

You can only say they have the outward appearance of conscious perception.

Anything with a sufficiently advanced brain does conscious perception, that is largely what brains do.

Brains process information, but this does not define conscious perception.

And in the future, maybe artificial intelligence synths will become conscious - conscious experience is information flows within a bounded system

Information flow is not conscious perception.
Conscious perception requires the awareness of information, whether it flows or not.

and there is nothing magic about carbon, other material substrates like silicon can support information flow.

agreed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well, until someone can come up with a complete explanation of how conscious awareness can be defined in terms of material reactions, I am happy to continue with using my God given soul.

Why would you reject an answer that has a "definition" as you put it that's incomplete in favour of an answer for which there's no definition of any kind ("God", "soul", "spiritual" etc)? In other words, why do you think you have a better chance of seeing the big picture from a jig-saw with no pieces instead of a jig-saw with some pieces?

[Alan Burns]

I don't need to imagine it, I have a well-supported, heavily documented scientific theory which explains it fairly comprehensively.

It is explained using the considerable God given intelligence of human beings like Dawkins et al to think up imaginary scenarios and computer generated simulations which assume that this tiny speck of the universe can supply an apparently limitless amount of randomly generated beneficial mutations to drive the evolutionary process. 

The verifiable evidence can only confirm evolution as a fine tuning method for facilitating the survival of already complex living entities.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is explained using the considerable God given intelligence of human beings like Dawkins et al to think up imaginary scenarios and computer generated simulations which assume that this tiny speck of the universe can supply an apparently limitless amount of randomly generated beneficial mutations to drive the evolutionary process. 

The verifiable evidence can only confirm evolution as a fine tuning method for facilitating the survival of already complex living entities.

Your ignorance of what the Theory of Evolution actually entails is shocking.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why would you reject an answer that has a "definition" as you put it that's incomplete in favour of an answer for which there's no definition of any kind ("God", "soul", "spiritual" etc)? In other words, why do you think you have a better chance of seeing the big picture from a jig-saw with no pieces instead of a jig-saw with some pieces?

Because your scenario can be compared to trying to complete a 3D puzzle using only two dimensional pieces.  Reality can never be complete without the spiritual dimension.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because your scenario can be compared to trying to complete a 3D puzzle using only two dimensional pieces.

Only in your head Alan, only in your head.

Reality can never be complete without the spiritual dimension.

But your "argument" against consciousness being as the evidence tells us it is is that the "definition" of it isn't complete. You then throw in terms like "spiritual" for which you have no definition of any kind. Why doesn't your rationale "not enough definition" also apply to the terms you attempt?   

Why the double standard?

[floo]

It is explained using the considerable God given intelligence of human beings like Dawkins et al to think up imaginary scenarios and computer generated simulations which assume that this tiny speck of the universe can supply an apparently limitless amount of randomly generated beneficial mutations to drive the evolutionary process. 

The verifiable evidence can only confirm evolution as a fine tuning method for facilitating the survival of already complex living entities.

You keep banging on about god giving you intelligence, but can't provide one shred of evidence to support your belief. One to be forgiven for thinking the RCC has brainwashed you into thinking as you do.

[torridon]

You can only say they [dogs, cats, etc] have the outward appearance of conscious perception

The same goes for any animal or person.  If someone or something appears to be conscious then in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the reasonable assumption is that they are conscious.  This will get harder and more controversial when we have conscious machines; many people will probably continue to hold that a conscious synth that appears to be conscious is not actually conscious and is only giving a programmed appearance of such.  However by that time we will have much finer diagnostic tools to verify such things

... Information flow is not conscious perception.
Conscious perception requires the awareness of information, whether it flows or not

Eerm, Information flow is not conscious perception, yes correct, how the corollary is not.  Conscious perception is information flow, at a fundamental level of description.  Your experience of seeing these words now is an information flow from rebounded electromagnetic radiation passing and transforming through retinal cells, ganglia, optic nerves, amygdala, visual cortex, a wave of biological reactions; vision is the passage of that information flow through us.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Only in your head Alan, only in your head.

But your "argument" against consciousness being as the evidence tells us it is is that the "definition" of it isn't complete. You then throw in terms like "spiritual" for which you have no definition of any kind. Why doesn't your rationale "not enough definition" apply to the terms you attempt?   

Why the double standard?

I do not see a definition of consciousness which is incomplete.
I just see no definition of consciousness in your scenario.

My definition of consciousness is an awareness of information, but no amount of complex juggling of information flows and neural network activity can generate awareness of information - it just moves information from one place to another.  As I have indicated previously, awareness can only be achieved by having a recipient of information - it is not the information itself.

[Alan Burns]

  Your experience of seeing these words now is an information flow from rebounded electromagnetic radiation passing and transforming through retinal cells, ganglia, optic nerves, amygdala, visual cortex, a wave of biological reactions; vision is the passage of that information flow through us.

But where does the information end up? What perceives it?

[SusanDoris]

And can you imagine how this single most complex processing hub known to man can get generated from a microscopic DNA molecule which came into existence without any form of intelligently guided interaction?

No doubt you will quote the blind process of natural selection of randomly generated mutations which seems to be responsible for generating any conceivable amount of incomprehensible complexity.

And who or what created the alleged intelligent designer?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not see a definition of consciousness which is incomplete.
I just see no definition of consciousness in your scenario.

Then you haven’t been paying attention. Consciousness is a significant field of research in cognitive science, notably psychology, neuropsychology and neuroscience. As Wiki puts it: “The primary focus is on understanding what it means biologically and psychologically for information to be present in consciousness—that is, on determining the neural and psychological correlates of consciousness”.

Even if that wasn’t true though and there were no definitions at all, that would still give you two big problems:

First, a “don’t know” would not give you licence to insert any explanation that happens to take your fancy. All it would give you is a “don’t know” – if you wanted to postulate “soul” etc then you’d have all your work ahead of you to investigate and validate the claim.

Second, the question you were actually asked concerned why you would reject a term for which we have partial “definitions” – ie, naturalistic consciousness – for terms for which you have no definitions of any kind – ie, “soul”, “spiritual” etc. Why in other words not apply your own critique to the terms you happen to favour?

My definition of consciousness is an awareness of information, but no amount of complex juggling of information flows and neural network activity can generate awareness of information - it just moves information from one place to another.  As I have indicated previously, awareness can only be achieved by having a recipient of information - it is not the information itself.

That’s just a faith claim that contradicts the evidence we do have. Just asserting “no amount of” etc is epistemically worthless. How could you possibly know for example what machines of similar complexity to brains could one day achieve?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But where does the information end up? What perceives it?

The self-aware you does.

[Sebastian Toe]

But where does the information end up? What perceives it?

You do. You as in your conscious self, is the recipient of the modified and filtered information as passed up from your subconscious mind. It results in the state of mind that you are transferring to this unevidenced, asserted and undefined entity, which you name - soul.

[ippy]

You keep banging on about god giving you intelligence, but can't provide one shred of evidence to support your belief. One to be forgiven for thinking the RCC has brainwashed you into thinking as you do.

The brainwashing technique was found to be a complete failure and since it involves torture, bad as the RCC is I doubt it would be investing in various forms of torture, for it's evil ends.

The idea was to wash the brain clean of it's past memories and then insert whatever line of thought wanted or thought to be necessary into the freshly washed brain, the only trouble with this no longer used process of brainwashing is, it it doesn't work.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

It is explained using the considerable God given intelligence of human beings like Dawkins et al to think up imaginary scenarios and computer generated simulations which assume that this tiny speck of the universe can supply an apparently limitless amount of randomly generated beneficial mutations to drive the evolutionary process. 

The verifiable evidence can only confirm evolution as a fine tuning method for facilitating the survival of already complex living entities.

Yuk!!! The mind-numbing candyfloss woolliness is too much. I'll just pop out into the garden for a few breaths of cool fresh air!!!
 I can't stand it!!! I'll have to skip past AB's posts.

[Alan Burns]

How could you possibly know for example what machines of similar complexity to brains could one day achieve?

Achievements, no matter how impressive, do not indicate or prove conscious awareness.  The achievements of such machines are merely indicative of the intelligence of their conscious designer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Achievements, no matter how impressive, do not indicate or prove conscious awareness.  The achievements of such machines are merely indicative of the intelligence of their designer.

Not when those "achievements" weren't designed at all they're not.

Anyway, you were going to tell us I think why an incomplete definition of the naturalistic model of consciousness is a problem for that model but no definition at all for "God", "soul", "spiritual" etc isn't a problem for these terms. 


 

[Alan Burns]

Yuk!!! The mind-numbing candyfloss woolliness is too much. I'll just pop out into the garden for a few breaths of cool fresh air!!!
 I can't stand it!!! I'll have to skip past AB's posts.

If my posts were as illogical as they are often accused of on this forum, you should have no trouble in dismissing them, Susan.  But the fact that you find them somewhat disturbing gives me hope that that they may give you something to ponder over.

[Sebastian Toe]

If my posts were as illogical as they are often accused of on this forum, you should have no trouble in dismissing them, Susan.  But the fact that you find them somewhat disturbing gives me hope that that they may give you something to ponder over.

Disturbing maybe but not in the way you want it to be!