Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

It makes me ponder over wilful ignorance.   

[floo]

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

I agree, the more AB posts the more sad I am that he seems unaware of how illogical his POV appears to the rest of us.

[Alan Burns]

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

But they were obviously designed in the man made machine you were quoting.

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.

Your naturalistic model still tries to imply that consciousness is merely the presence of information.  And I have yet to see how this information can possible perceive itself.  The information on your computer screen comprises many individual pixels of light, but in order for this information to be perceived you need a single conscious observer to receive and interpret all the pixels as a unit of information.  Just passing the patterns of dots around many individual brain cells may generate some form of reaction, but it will not be conscious perception.  You need a single entity of awareness to perceive the information contained in many brain cells, which is impossible to define in material terms.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If my posts were as illogical as they are often accused of on this forum, you should have no trouble in dismissing them, Susan.

No-one has any difficulty in "dismissing" them because they're so obviously wrong. Rather the problem is that you fail to grasp why they're wrong, despite endless explanations.

But the fact that you find them somewhat disturbing gives me hope that that they may give you something to ponder over.

No-one finds them "disturbing", and there's nothing to "ponder over" and nor can there be until and unless you finally manage a counter-argument that's coherent and cogent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But they were obviously designed in the man made machine you were quoting.

No they obviously weren’t. That’s the point about emergent properties – even when they arise from designed products and processes, the properties themselves can be entirely unintended.   

Your naturalistic model still tries to imply that consciousness is merely the presence of information.

No it doesn’t. It’s the presence and processing of information.

And I have yet to see how this information can possible perceive itself.

That you have yet to see it tells you nothing about whether it happens. This is just your broken argument from personal incredulity again.

The information on your computer screen comprises many individual pixels of light, but in order for this information to be perceived you need a single conscious observer to receive and interpret all the pixels as a unit of information.  Just passing the patterns of dots around many individual brain cells may generate some form of reaction, but it will not be conscious perception.  You need a single entity of awareness to perceive the information contained in many brain cells, which is impossible to define in material terms.

You’ve already been told why referencing a laptop is a false analogy, and you utterly fails to grasp the importance of sufficient complexity enabling self-awareness.

Oh, and what happened to your explanation for why the complete absence of “definition” for “soul” etc isn’t a problem for it, but the partial absence of definition for naturalistic consciousness is. 

Why are you avoiding this?   

[SusanDoris]

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?!! That is so completely, totally, mind-numbingly (again! ) wrong!
Any hope you might conjure up is completely, totally misplaced.

[Shaker]

If my posts were as illogical as they are often accused of on this forum, you should have no trouble in dismissing them, Susan.

Though not Susan specifically, people do this with your effusions on an almost daily basis, pointing out the bald assertions, monumental logical fallacies and empty rhetoric which comprise your stock in trade. Your habitual response to this is (1) to betray your ignorance of logic by denying that a fallacy is a fallacy at all, claiming it as merely a subjective opinion; (2) simply repeating your inanities for all the world as though you've never even seen the refutations by those infinitely better schooled in such matters; and far more often (3) merely running away with the said refutations ignored and unanswered, only to come back later and start the whole tedious business all over again.

But the fact that you find them somewhat disturbing gives me hope that that they may give you something to ponder over.

She didn't say she found them disturbing. She said she found them inane. Which they are.

[wigginhall]

Quite mind-boggling - AB argues that cognitive science and neuroscience are not complete explanations of consciousness, but hang on, he has a better model, the soul, which has no explanation. 

What is this?  Snake oil, or just poison to the mind?

[torridon]

Your naturalistic model still tries to imply that consciousness is merely the presence of information.  And I have yet to see how this information can possible perceive itself.  The information on your computer screen comprises many individual pixels of light, but in order for this information to be perceived you need a single conscious observer to receive and interpret all the pixels as a unit of information.  Just passing the patterns of dots around many individual brain cells may generate some form of reaction, but it will not be conscious perception.  You need a single entity of awareness to perceive the information contained in many brain cells, which is impossible to define in material terms.

The 'single entity of awareness' is the conscious self. Very loosely, just as a lens can focus a diffuse light,  the function of a brain is to focus and synchronise multimodal information flows into an apparently singular synthesis of conscious experience.  This might be hard to get your head round, but it is what the evidence is telling us.  The idea that there must be another little me inside me who is the end recipient of all that information is just pointless, it merely serves as a simple explanation that stands in place of a real understanding.  When a wolf eyes up a lame bison, do we imagine there must be another little wolf inside in order to understand how vision works in a wolf's mind ?

[Gordon]

Alan

I recall you've said several time you're an active member of the RCC, so I was wondering if the RCC endorse your particular take on 'souls' and have engaged scientists to investigate the 'spiritual' aspects of neurology in general, and your take on 'conscious awareness' in particular?

I suspect you're ploughing a lone furrow here and that the problem you are having is, essentially, you're own biases are getting in the way of your ability to reason on this specific issue.

[Alan Burns]

No it doesn’t. It’s the presence and processing of information.

presence plus processing does not equal perception - just reaction.

[Gordon]

presence plus processing does not equal perception - just reaction.

Says who (apart from you)?

[Alan Burns]

You’ve already been told why referencing a laptop is a false analogy, and you utterly fails to grasp the importance of sufficient complexity enabling self-awareness.

No amount of physical complexity can define self awareness - you just go round in circles of data movements with no definitive perceptor of data.

Oh, and what happened to your explanation for why the complete absence of “definition” for “soul” etc isn’t a problem for it, but the partial absence of definition for naturalistic consciousness is. 

My soul can be defined by what it does, which is to perceive and wilfully interact with this physically deterministic world.  And there can be no naturalistic explanation for this - partial or otherwise.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

I recall you've said several time you're an active member of the RCC, so I was wondering if the RCC endorse your particular take on 'souls' and have engaged scientists to investigate the 'spiritual' aspects of neurology in general, and your take on 'conscious awareness' in particular?

I suspect you're ploughing a lone furrow here and that the problem you are having is, essentially, you're own biases are getting in the way of your ability to reason on this specific issue.

Within the RCC church I have given three talks on the subject and had two publications (not including my Mensa article which was not a church publication).  All were received very favourably.

[Gordon]

Within the RCC church I have given three talks on the subject and had two publications (not including my Mensa article which was not a church publication).  All were received very favourably.

Were these in accredited peer-reviewed journals dealing specifically with neuroscience and/or psychology, and was your audience competent to assess your claims regarding consciousness?

[Alan Burns]

The 'single entity of awareness' is the conscious self. Very loosely, just as a lens can focus a diffuse light,  the function of a brain is to focus and synchronise multimodal information flows into an apparently singular synthesis of conscious experience.  This might be hard to get your head round, but it is what the evidence is telling us.  The idea that there must be another little me inside me who is the end recipient of all that information is just pointless, it merely serves as a simple explanation that stands in place of a real understanding.  When a wolf eyes up a lame bison, do we imagine there must be another little wolf inside in order to understand how vision works in a wolf's mind ?

You seem unable to grasp the concept that conscious perception is not a material thing.  It is just awareness of something which is defined in material terms.  You see a word on a document, and the physical bits of your eye and brain transfer the detail of the word pattern to your brain cells.  But where does the meaning of the word pattern reside? And how can a single entity of meaning exist in material form?
(and the wolf could just be reacting according to its instinctive programmed logic - no need for conscious perception)

[Alan Burns]

Were these in accredited peer-reviewed journals dealing specifically with neuroscience and/or psychology, and was your audience competent to assess your claims regarding consciousness?

No to the peer reviews.
I was not aware of any neuroscientists in the audiences, but I did get a compliment from a quantum physicist.

[Shaker]

Within the RCC church I have given three talks on the subject and had two publications (not including my Mensa article which was not a church publication).  All were received very favourably.

Not much of a recommendation to get a favourable reception from people prey to exactly the same kind of aberrant reasoning that you display here daily.

[Shaker]

No to the peer reviews.
I was not aware of any neuroscientists in the audiences, but I did get a compliment from a quantum physicist.

What did he say? "Nice tie, Alan?"

[Alan Burns]

What did he say? "Nice tie, Alan?"

He agreed with my speculation that quantum uncertainty could be the gateway for spiritual interaction.

[Gordon]

No to the peer reviews.
I was not aware of any neuroscientists in the audiences, but I did get a compliment from a quantum physicist.

So there is no widespread support for your claims among either specialist scientists or even your fellow theists, so I wouldn't read too much into receiving a polite hearing.

[ippy]

I find it disturbing that there are people like you about Alan, people that I know will go about and wilfully instil this bronze age ignorant nonsense with a gleeful further on to the next poor, young and innocent, vulnerable, unfortunate, generation of very young children.

The worst thing about the above and is also disturbing about people like you Alan, is that you probably think there's absolutely nothing wrong with this scheme of yours, and your fellow travellers, that you have deliberately reserved for these poor unfortunates.

Apart from the above, there's nothing wrong with having your general outlook Alan.

ippy

[ippy]

Within the RCC church I have given three talks on the subject and had two publications (not including my Mensa article which was not a church publication).  All were received very favourably.

Well they would be Alan, birds of a feather.

ippy

[Shaker]

He agreed with my speculation that quantum uncertainty could be the gateway for spiritual interaction.

Yes, quantum woo is the gateway for many a theist trying to crowbar their deity into the universe. See the woeful second half of Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God for a particularly awful example (condensed version for the time-challenged: reality at the quantum level is probabilistic rather than deterministic, therefore God fiddles with reality at the quantum level. Evidence: not provided; mechanism: unexplained). I've no doubt your alleged quantum physicist was a victim of the same intellectual slipshodness.

On the plus side, at least you concede that your effusions are sheer speculation. Baby steps ...

[Gordon]

He agreed with my speculation that quantum uncertainty could be the gateway for spiritual interaction.

On what basis did he envisage a mechanism for this, and did he say how he'd set about investigating further? Perhaps he was just being nice to you, Alan, since no serious scientist would 'agree with speculation' in a professional sense without risking their professional status.