Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, there are plenty of hard problems, such as gravity, but consciousness has been like a flame attracting moths, with regard to some theists, gnostics, and general woo merchants.   I suppose it seems to hover around the border of mind and body, which is kind of ooh, spooky, or something.    I suppose also it's one of the few gaps now, where you can slide God in.

I think we are actually waiting for a scientific explanation to be slid in.
That's a scientific explanation, not what most of you guys have.....scientism.

[Sebastian Toe]

I think we are actually waiting for a scientific explanation to be slid in.

No need surely?
Not when we have Burns Law of the Soul.

That's unless you don't agree with him!
Do you?

[Stranger]

I think we are actually waiting for a scientific explanation to be slid in.
That's a scientific explanation, not what most of you guys have.....scientism.

Are your thoughts actually as incoherent as your posts?

[Nearly Sane]

I think we are actually waiting for a scientific explanation to be slid in.
That's a scientific explanation, not what most of you guys have.....scientism.

so in 3-2-1 terms, we are obviously waiting for something. That could be a bus, or maybe a holiday, or perhaps the council bin collection. But when we add scientific it brings to mind relativity and maybe relatives in a far away country might get to see.

But if that's slid in could that be a reference to a football tackle, or the 'lid in' a Dusty Bin?

Now however it's not scientific, rather it's scientism so if we apply that to relativity it becomes relativism, and yes some people might like this but many won't so while it's a good prize to some you may be disappointed that it's our old friend Dusty Bin, and here he is dressed as that relativity man, Einstein



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckf_6GiLO1E

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No need surely?
Not when we have Burns Law of the Soul.

That's unless you don't agree with him!
Do you?

I'm afraid I'm only required to give you my name rank and number

So that's Vlad, head honcho and numero uno.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so in 3-2-1 terms, we are obviously waiting for something. That could be a bus, or maybe a holiday, or perhaps the council bin collection. But when we add scientific it brings to mind relativity and maybe relatives in a far away country might get to see.

But if that's slid in could that be a reference to a football tackle, or the 'lid in' a Dusty Bin?

Now however it's not scientific, rather it's scientism so if we apply that to relativity it becomes relativism, and yes some people might like this but many won't so while it's a good prize to some you may be disappointed that it's our old friend Dusty Bin, and here he is dressed as that relativity man, Einstein



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckf_6GiLO1E

Excellent. Can you do the fingers thing? I always end up with two adjacent in the vertical.

[Nearly Sane]

Excellent. Can you do the fingers thing? I always end up with two adjacent in the vertical.

you get nothing for a pair, or two in a bed. That's just a giant fail in crap gameshow terms.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm afraid I'm only required to give you my name rank and number

So that's Vlad, head honcho and numero uno.

Looks like I will have to use the Valdish translation algorithm again.
1. Eliminate unnecessary words.
2. Rearrange the remainder into correct order.
3. Fill in with hidden message.

That gives;

My name, that's Vlad.
I'm rank and I'm afraid.......
(To give even the slightest criticism of another theist)


Yup, that should do it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looks like I will have to use the Valdish translation algorithm again.
1. Eliminate unnecessary words.
2. Rearrange the remainder into correct order.
3. Fill in with hidden message.

That gives;

My name, that's Vlad.
I'm rank and I'm afraid.......
(To give even the slightest criticism of another theist)


Yup, that should do it.

Stop boo hooing because I won't join your posse

[Sebastian Toe]

Stop boo hooing because I won't join your posse

Looks like a nerve has been well and truly hit!

[wigginhall]

I think we are actually waiting for a scientific explanation to be slid in.
That's a scientific explanation, not what most of you guys have.....scientism.

I'm not sure who 'we' is, but AB is saying that a scientific description and explanation of consciousness is impossible.   According to him, a physical process cannot generate a mental process, so neuroscience is wasting its time, if it wants to describe mental stuff.    And he also knows what does generate it, but he's not telling.

[Alan Burns]

Of course perception is all about data flow ..........

But no matter how much technical description you apply to it, in essence it is just individual atoms and molecules reacting with their immediate neighbours.  What you are implying is that a specific arrangement of these atoms and molecules can generate what comprises our conscious awareness.  Which implies that a rock could in theory be zapped into a conscious human just by re arranging the molecular structure.  Can you not see the obvious fact that the arrangement of the atoms and molecules is just a material mechanism which transmits information using their scientifically determined reactions?  They can in no way be shown to be generating conscious perception of their activity.  Atoms and molecules react - they do not perceive.

[floo]

But no matter how much technical description you apply to it, in essence it is just individual atoms and molecules reacting with their immediate neighbours.  What you are implying is that a specific arrangement of these atoms and molecules can generate what comprises our conscious awareness.  Which implies that a rock could in theory be zapped into a conscious human just by re arranging the molecular structure.  Can you not see the obvious fact that the arrangement of the atoms and molecules is just a material mechanism which transmits information using their scientifically determined reactions?  They can in no way be shown to be generating conscious perception of their activity.  Atoms and molecules react - they do not perceive.

Atoms and molecules work differently in an animal species like humans, to that of those in a rock.

[Gordon]

But no matter how much technical description you apply to it, in essence it is just individual atoms and molecules reacting with their immediate neighbours.

So?
 

What you are implying is that a specific arrangement of these atoms and molecules can generate what comprises our conscious awareness.

When they are organised in the form of a functioning brain then it would seem likely that consciousness is an outcome.

Which implies that a rock could in theory be zapped into a conscious human just by re arranging the molecular structure.

Maybe it could: you'll just need to wait for the science to catch up with your imagination.

Can you not see the obvious fact that the arrangement of the atoms and molecules is just a material mechanism which transmits information using their scientifically determined reactions?  They can in no way be shown to be generating conscious perception of their activity.  Atoms and molecules react - they do not perceive.

I see that the fallacy of composition is your fallacy du jour.

[Maeght]

But no matter how much technical description you apply to it, in essence it is just individual atoms and molecules reacting with their immediate neighbours.  What you are implying is that a specific arrangement of these atoms and molecules can generate what comprises our conscious awareness.  Which implies that a rock could in theory be zapped into a conscious human just by re arranging the molecular structure.  Can you not see the obvious fact that the arrangement of the atoms and molecules is just a material mechanism which transmits information using their scientifically determined reactions?  They can in no way be shown to be generating conscious perception of their activity.  Atoms and molecules react - they do not perceive.

Just more assertions.

[Stranger]

But no matter how much technical description you apply to it, in essence it is just individual atoms and molecules reacting with their immediate neighbours.  What you are implying is that a specific arrangement of these atoms and molecules can generate what comprises our conscious awareness.

You mean like "specific arrangements" of atoms and molecules can "generate" living things and other "specific arrangements" of atoms and molecules can "generate" functioning computers. Yes, that is what all the evidence does indeed point to.

Which implies that a rock could in theory be zapped into a conscious human just by re arranging the molecular structure.

That's a bit silly, really. Do you think a rock could be "zapped" into an amoeba, a giraffe, a pool of water, a computer...?

Can you not see the obvious fact that the arrangement of the atoms and molecules is just a material mechanism which transmits information using their scientifically determined reactions?

And what more, exactly, is required? Unless you know how consciousness is generated, you can't know that it isn't built out of very complex reactions.

They can in no way be shown to be generating conscious perception of their activity.

It can be strongly suggested by the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for anything else being involved.

Atoms and molecules react - they do not perceive.

Again, how do you know that perception isn't built out of complicated reactions?

[Alan Burns]

And what more, exactly, is required? Unless you know how consciousness is generated, you can't know that it isn't built out of very complex reactions.

A reaction is just what it is - a reaction.  Any complexity is what is perceived and interpreted in the eye of the perceiver.  There can be no inherent difference between a simple reaction and a complex one - they are all just reactions.  The only thing they are capable of generating is more reactions.

[Nearly Sane]

A reaction is just what it is - a reaction.  Any complexity is what is perceived and interpreted in the eye of the perceiver.  There can be no inherent difference between a simple reaction and a complex one - they are all just reactions.  The only thing they are capable of generating is more reactions.

Which is a complete non sequitur to Stranger's question. Why do you not even do people the courtesy of reading their posts before you reply with further assertions?

[Alan Burns]

Which is a complete non sequitur to Stranger's question. Why do you not even do people the courtesy of reading their posts before you reply with further assertions?

My post answers his question by implying that there has to be something more to conscious awareness than material reactions alone.  Just applying the word "complex" explains nothing.

[Nearly Sane]

My post answers his question by implying that there has to be something more to conscious awareness than material reactions.  Just applying the word "complex" explains nothing.

His post doesn't say 'complex' is an explanation. Which is further indication that you don't show the common courtesy of actually reading posts.

[Stranger]

And what more, exactly, is required? Unless you know how consciousness is generated, you can't know that it isn't built out of very complex reactions.

A reaction is just what it is - a reaction.  Any complexity is what is perceived and interpreted in the eye of the perceiver.  There can be no inherent difference between a simple reaction and a complex one - they are all just reactions.  The only thing they are capable of generation is more reactions.

You didn't answer my question. What more is required, and how do you know?

Look Alan, of course it's difficult to understand how perception works, that's why lots of very clever people are thinking about it and researching it. Some bloke on a message board, with an obvious religious agenda to pursue and (apparently) no knowledge of much of the thinking on the subject, claiming it's so hard to understand it must be god-magic, is not exactly convincing.

As I said before, it's a fascinating subject - I actually pity your impoverished point of view - the reality of the mystery and the attempts to solve it are so very much more interesting than magical fairy tales.

[Alan Burns]

A reaction is just what it is - a reaction.  Any complexity is what is perceived and interpreted in the eye of the perceiver.  There can be no inherent difference between a simple reaction and a complex one - they are all just reactions.  The only thing they are capable of generation is more reactions.


You didn't answer my question. What more is required, and how do you know?

I do not know what more is required.  I just know that there must be something more to conscious awareness than material reactions alone, because as I said in my post, material reactions can only generate more material reactions, and the nature of the reactions generated are inherently just the same as the reactions from which they came.

[Gordon]

I do not know what more is required.  I just know that there must be something more to conscious awareness than material reactions alone, because as I said in my post, material reactions can only generate more material reactions, and the nature of the reactions generated are inherently just the same as the reactions from which they came.

You don't 'know', Alan.

It seems to me that you simply aren't content to just believe and that, instead, you've contrived a hook to hang your God on comprising repetitive fallacy-ridden theobabble involving souls and consciousness. Also, as far as I can see, you are ploughing a lone furrow here since I'm not aware that neurologists are looking for evidence of God or that theologians see neurology as providing support for divine agency.

[Stranger]

I do not know what more is required.

Some attention, some thought, and some logic, would be too much to hope for, I guess...

I just know that there must be something more to conscious awareness than material reactions alone...

You know nothing of the sort, unless you know what else is required.

...because as I said in my post, material reactions can only generate more material reactions, and the nature of the reactions generated are inherently just the same as the reactions from which they came.

Well, the nature of the reactions of living things seem qualitatively different to the reactions of rocks to gravity (for example). That's why people thought that there must be something fundamentally different about living things, perhaps something non-physical (see: Vitalism). It took scientific investigation to uncover the fact that it was just more complex reactions.

Sound familiar?

[Alan Burns]

Well, the nature of the reactions of living things seem qualitatively different to the reactions of rocks to gravity (for example). That's why people thought that there must be something fundamentally different about living things, perhaps something non-physical (see: Vitalism). It took scientific investigation to uncover the fact that it was just more complex reactions.

But conscious perception is not just what is perceived from outside, it is what is experienced from within the depth of human minds.  It defies any scientific definition, far beyond anything which can be produced from material reactions alone