Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

And any prey animal that was not aware of the predator creeping up on it would not survive to pass on the mechanisms by which that awareness is procured.  All creatures with brains have highly developed and refined perception of their surroundings, this is what brains do for us; try living without a brain and we would not survive for more than a second or two.

What you describe can be summed up as instinctive programmed reactions to the sensory data being input to the brain.  There is no need for conscious perception, so you can't simply assert that it is present in animals.  What we have in humans is a conscious awareness of what our sensory inputs should make us do.  And with this awareness comes the option to choose - "shall I do it or shan't I?" -  Our awareness gives us the option to choose.

[torridon]

What you describe can be summed up as instinctive programmed reactions to the sensory data being input to the brain.  There is no need for conscious perception, so you can't simply assert that it is present in animals.  What we have in humans is a conscious awareness of what our sensory inputs should make us do.  And with this awareness comes the option to choose - "shall I do it or shan't I?" -  Our awareness gives us the option to choose.

You are still muddling up conscious/subconscious with instinctive/learned behaviours.  I'm sure this has been explained several thousand times already.  All higher creatures employ a mix of instinctive and learned behaviours. All higher creatures have periods of sleeping and waking; whilst awake they are fully conscious and minimally conscious when asleep. Learned behaviours required conscious perception. A brown bear does not instinctively know how to catch a salmon in the river, it has to learn how to do it and this requires conscious perception, this is too complex a task to learn during sleep. 

Notwithstanding all that, humans probably have the most advanced capacities for cognitive abstraction and hence we are able to consider a greater range of what if scenarios in any given situation; which will yield the best outcome, an instinctive response, or something more subtle or complex.  The mechanism of choice still remains the same at a fundamental level though.  We choose the option that we believe will lead to the best outcome,but we cannot choose what to believe or what to want.

[Shaker]

You are still muddling up conscious/subconscious with instinctive/learned behaviours.  I'm sure this has been explained several thousand times already.

With "Crashes and" everything has been explained several thousand times already. It doesn't make a jot of difference.

[Gordon]

What you describe can be summed up as instinctive programmed reactions to the sensory data being input to the brain.  There is no need for conscious perception, so you can't simply assert that it is present in animals.

Says who, and how do you know some non-human species don't have some degree of consciousness?

[Stranger]

What you describe can be summed up as instinctive programmed reactions to the sensory data being input to the brain.  There is no need for conscious perception, so you can't simply assert that it is present in animals.

Can't assert!? I suggest a bible reading: Matthew 7:3-5.

Moving on. So now, not only are you saying that something you don't understand cannot possibly be produced by something else that you have very limited knowledge of, but also that said thing that you don't understand cannot be present in very similar instances of the thing you have very limited knowledge of because... err... you said so.

[SusanDoris]

Stranger

It is so desperately sad that AB will not register what you have said.

[Alan Burns]

You are still muddling up conscious/subconscious with instinctive/learned behaviours .....

No, it is your attempts to shoehorn human behaviour into the instinctive/learned behaviours of animals which is causing the confusion.  With our conscious awareness comes the ability to make conscious choices rather than inevitable unavoidable reaction dictated by programmed instinct and learnt behaviour.  To deny your freedom to choose is to deny your humanity - it is what makes us human.

[Stranger]

No, it is your attempts to shoehorn human behaviour into the instinctive/learned behaviours of animals which is causing the confusion.  With our conscious awareness comes the ability to make conscious choices rather than inevitable unavoidable reaction dictated by programmed instinct and learnt behaviour.  To deny your freedom to choose is to deny your humanity - it is what makes us human.

You do realize that you're just asserting your position (yet again)? We know what you think: humans have the god-magic, logically self-contradictory ability to make purposeful decisions that aren't determined and have god-magic consciousness, while the poor dumb animals don't.

However, you have offered not one iota of logic or evidence to support this view. Just assertion and a veritable encyclopaedia of fallacies.

[Enki]

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/animal_instincts

 

[floo]

No, it is your attempts to shoehorn human behaviour into the instinctive/learned behaviours of animals which is causing the confusion.  With our conscious awareness comes the ability to make conscious choices rather than inevitable unavoidable reaction dictated by programmed instinct and learnt behaviour.  To deny your freedom to choose is to deny your humanity - it is what makes us human.

Even if it were true animals of other species didn't make conscious choices, (something I would challenge), what has that to do with any god? Surely it would mean the human animal has progressed more rapidly than the others.

[Nearly Sane]

Even if it were true animals of other species didn't make conscious choices, (something I would challenge), what has that to do with any god? Surely it would mean the human animal has progressed more rapidly than the others.

Evolution doesn't work that way. Organisms evolve differently. There isn't a goal which is aimed at being reached so there isn't a 'faster' in the sense you use it here.

[floo]

Evolution doesn't work that way. Organisms evolve differently. There isn't a goal which is aimed at being reached so there isn't a 'faster' in the sense you use it here.

I bow to your superior knowledge, but it still doesn't mean a god is responsible for humans being the most intelligent species of animal on this planet.

[Alan Burns]

You do realize that you're just asserting your position (yet again)? We know what you think: humans have the god-magic, logically self-contradictory ability to make purposeful decisions that aren't determined and have god-magic consciousness, while the poor dumb animals don't.

However, you have offered not one iota of logic or evidence to support this view. Just assertion and a veritable encyclopaedia of fallacies.

But how can I possibly have the ability to assert if I do not have the freedom to assert?  An assertion must have a root cause, but in the physically determined secular world there can be no root cause, just endless chains of unavoidable reactions under the control of nature.

So the logic for my position is simply that any assertion I make of my own free will must be determined by something which is not under the unavoidable deterministic control of nature, but under the spiritually determined control of my conscious awareness - the God given power of the human soul.

[Maeght]

But how can I possibly have the ability to assert if I do not have the freedom to assert?

How about, its an instinctive reaction based on your previous experiences. Which is what people have been suggesting all along of course. Odd that you have to ask, yet again.

[Stranger]

But how can I possibly have the ability to assert if I do not have the freedom to assert?

Seriously? I could write a computer program that just asserts like you do.

An assertion must have a root cause, but in the physically determined secular world there can be no root cause, just endless chains of unavoidable reactions under the control of nature.

So the logic for my position is simply that any assertion I make of my own free will must be determined by something which is not under the unavoidable deterministic control of nature, but under the spiritually determined control of my conscious awareness...

So (here we go again) how does "conscious awareness" arrive at its decisions? Bearing in mind (as as been discussed at length before) that 'not deterministic' means random and not random means deterministic and hence all events (including conscious choices) must be the result of some combination of the two.

Also bearing in mind that the above is a logical statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether choices and consciousness are physical/material or not.

It's been some time, have you thought of an answer yet (other than "I don't know, it must be logic defying magic")?

[Alan Burns]

Seriously? I could write a computer program that just asserts like you do.

Then you would be the root cause of the assertion

So (here we go again) how does "conscious awareness" arrive at its decisions? Bearing in mind (as as been discussed at length before) that 'not deterministic' means random and not random means deterministic and hence all events (including conscious choices) must be the result of some combination of the two.

You need to get to grips with the reality of spiritually determined events.
Nature cannot assert, it can only react.

[torridon]

No, it is your attempts to shoehorn human behaviour into the instinctive/learned behaviours of animals which is causing the confusion.  With our conscious awareness comes the ability to make conscious choices rather than inevitable unavoidable reaction dictated by programmed instinct and learnt behaviour.  To deny your freedom to choose is to deny your humanity - it is what makes us human.

What you describe as freedom is really the greater cognitive range that characterises humans. Provoke a dog with a stick and it will snarl and bark and maybe bite.  So much, so instinctive.  Provoke a man with a stick and he has many more options to call upon; maybe he will go for a punch, alternatively he might call the police, alternatively he might come back with a bunch of his mates and take you for a little walk.  If he was a pacifist he might forgive you.  That we have greater cognitive range is characteristic of humans, but it is not unique to humans; in fact scarcely a day goes by without some new research astonishing us with the unexpected mental abilities and thought processes of other animals.  From today's news in fact, there is a finding that pigeons, like humans, are also capable of abstract thought and decision making :

"The finding adds to growing recognition in the scientific community that lower-order animal species – such as birds, reptiles, and fish – are capable of high-level, abstract decision-making"

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/new-study-shows-pigeons-can-abstract-thoughts/04/12/

Your mantra that other animals 'just react' is well past its use-by date.

[Shaker]

Seriously? I could write a computer program that just asserts like you do.

Possibly someone already has.

[Maeght]

You need to get to grips with the reality of spiritually determined events.

That should have been

'You need to agree with my belief in spiritually determined events.'

[Stranger]

Seriously? I could write a computer program that just asserts like you do.

Then you would be the root cause of the assertion

Exactly - a computer program can assert without having any 'freedom to assert'.

So (here we go again) how does "conscious awareness" arrive at its decisions? Bearing in mind (as as been discussed at length before) that 'not deterministic' means random and not random means deterministic and hence all events (including conscious choices) must be the result of some combination of the two.

You need to get to grips with the reality of spiritually determined events.

Please do explain exactly how those work...

Nature cannot assert, it can only react.

Why can't an assertion be a reaction?

[Enki]

What you describe as freedom is really the greater cognitive range that characterises humans. Provoke a dog with a stick and it will snarl and bark and maybe bite.  So much, so instinctive.  Provoke a man with a stick and he has many more options to call upon; maybe he will go for a punch, alternatively he might call the police, alternatively he might come back with a bunch of his mates and take you for a little walk.  If he was a pacifist he might forgive you.  That we have greater cognitive range is characteristic of humans, but it is not unique to humans; in fact scarcely a day goes by without some new research astonishing us with the unexpected mental abilities and thought processes of other animals.  From today's news in fact, there is a finding that pigeons, like humans, are also capable of abstract thought and decision making :

"The finding adds to growing recognition in the scientific community that lower-order animal species – such as birds, reptiles, and fish – are capable of high-level, abstract decision-making"

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/new-study-shows-pigeons-can-abstract-thoughts/04/12/

Your mantra that other animals 'just react' is well past its use-by date.

Good article, Torri.

Also, dogs, like many animals, are good at attempting to assert dominance over other animals. Perhaps Alan is simply trying to assert the dominance of his ideas above those of others, and spectacularly failing in his attempts, probably because he is faced with so many more productive ideas which seem to leave him pissing in the wind.

[wigginhall]

I think there's something in that, enki.   Some religions seem to harbour strong alpha male characteristics, that is,  wanting to dominate all talk of religion, and not listen to others' views.     

[Alan Burns]

Then you would be the root cause of the assertion


Exactly - a computer program can assert without having any 'freedom to assert'.
You need to get to grips with the reality of spiritually determined events.

But it is not the computer program which is responsible for any assertions - it is the programmer.  And no programmer has been able to replicate the existence of conscious free will in a program.  The computer program would not exist without the programmer, and the human mind would not exist without its Creator who shares His creative willpower with His created.

[Gordon]

You need to get to grips with the reality of spiritually determined events.

What reality is this, and how does one identify spiritual causes as opposed to the common or garden kind? This sounds like more of your theobabble, Alan.

Nature cannot assert, it can only react.

You seem to assert continually, Alan, but then I suppose that is in your nature. You do a lot of reacting too: such as the mindless mantras you invariably respond with even when they've been roundly trounced and exposed as being a fallacy-fest.

[Alan Burns]

Good article, Torri.

Also, dogs, like many animals, are good at attempting to assert dominance over other animals. Perhaps Alan is simply trying to assert the dominance of his ideas above those of others, and spectacularly failing in his attempts, probably because he is faced with so many more productive ideas which seem to leave him pissing in the wind.

There are many similarities between human behaviour and animal behaviour, but no animal has shown any capacity to believe, or disbelieve in a Creator.  Such an ability can only come from the God given conscious perception and willpower of the human soul.