Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Learned behaviours aren't instinctive either;  that's why they are called learned behaviours rather than instinctive behaviours.

There's nothing magic about 'ignoring' either.  A chimp will frequently signal to another to come and groom; sometimes the other chimp will come along, but if not in the mood, she sometimes ignores the request.

Learnt behaviours can be programmed, (as they are in advanced computer chess playing games), so they can be classed alongside instinct as predictable behaviour with no need for consciously driven choice.  And observed "ignoring" in animals may well be due to another higher priority task taking precedence, such as resting - so not necessarily a deliberate consciously driven action.  But when considering my accusations of deliberate assertion, I would correctly assume that these are not observable attributes in animals.

[Sebastian Toe]

And observed "ignoring" in animals may well be due to another higher priority task taking precedence, such as resting -

So a decision has to be made on which alternative to choose. Rest or groom.
Decided by their soul no doubt because that's what makes choices isn't it?

[floo]

Learnt behaviours can be programmed, (as they are in advanced computer chess playing games), so they can be classed alongside instinct as predictable behaviour with no need for consciously driven choice.  And observed "ignoring" in animals may well be due to another higher priority task taking precedence, such as resting - so not necessarily a deliberate consciously driven action.  But when considering my accusations of deliberate assertion, I would correctly assume that these are not observable attributes in animals.

Humans are just as much an animal species as any other.

[torridon]

Learnt behaviours can be programmed, (as they are in advanced computer chess playing games), so they can be classed alongside instinct as predictable behaviour with no need for consciously driven choice.  And observed "ignoring" in animals may well be due to another higher priority task taking precedence, such as resting - so not necessarily a deliberate consciously driven action.  But when considering my accusations of deliberate assertion, I would correctly assume that these are not observable attributes in animals.

The decision making mechanism in a chimp is far closer to that in a human than to that of a chess playing computer program.  Far closer, as anyone working in AI will tell you. Humans and chimps both have a primate brain and both arrive at choices through the same basic thalmic/limbic mechanism. When a chimp weighs up whether or not to accede to the request of another, its choice reflects its personal priority at that moment in time. Ditto with humans, our choice reflects our preference at the moment.  The major difference between the chimp and the human is cognitive range, nothing to do with consciousness.  Humans can bring a wider range of considerations into play to arrive at a more intelligent choice (usually), but the bottom line remains the same, at the end, both human and chimp will choose the path that most appeals at that moment in those circumstances.

[Alan Burns]

Humans and chimps both have a primate brain and both arrive at choices through the same basic thalmic/limbic mechanism.

But without knowing what generates conscious awareness, or how it works, how can you possibly come up with such a conclusion?  You can't possibly say how chips arrive at their choices.  Observations of what happens in the thalmic/limbic mechanism can only ever comprise a correlation of some brain activity with decision making.  It does not define how the choice is made or what generates the choice.

[Sebastian Toe]

You can't possibly say how chips arrive at their choices. 

Can you?

[Walter]

But without knowing what generates conscious awareness, or how it works, how can you possibly come up with such a conclusion?  You can't possibly say how chips arrive at their choices.  Observations of what happens in the thalmic/limbic mechanism can only ever comprise a correlation of some brain activity with decision making.  It does not define how the choice is made or what generates the choice.

Alan Burns

have a watch of this , it might help

https://youtu.be/7t_Uyi9bNS4

[ippy]

The decision making mechanism in a chimp is far closer to that in a human than to that of a chess playing computer program.  Far closer, as anyone working in AI will tell you. Humans and chimps both have a primate brain and both arrive at choices through the same basic thalmic/limbic mechanism. When a chimp weighs up whether or not to accede to the request of another, its choice reflects its personal priority at that moment in time. Ditto with humans, our choice reflects our preference at the moment.  The major difference between the chimp and the human is cognitive range, nothing to do with consciousness.  Humans can bring a wider range of considerations into play to arrive at a more intelligent choice (usually), but the bottom line remains the same, at the end, both human and chimp will choose the path that most appeals at that moment in those circumstances.

Torri, you seems to me you're conversent with animal behaviour, I just wondering if the other primates were as susetptible to indoctrination as we human primates are, l would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

Regards ippy

[torridon]

But without knowing what generates conscious awareness, or how it works, how can you possibly come up with such a conclusion?  You can't possibly say how chips arrive at their choices.  Observations of what happens in the thalmic/limbic mechanism can only ever comprise a correlation of some brain activity with decision making.  It does not define how the choice is made or what generates the choice.

It comes down to the same principle whether you are a robin or a chimp or an alligator or an insurance salesman : we weigh up our options and go with the one that we prefer in that moment.  None of us truly has free will in that situation because we cannot choose what our preferences are.  I cannot just decide to prefer coffee over tea if in fact I prefer tea.  The same goes for robins and chimps.  The whole thing about consciousness is a bit of a red herring, as we now understand conscious awareness to be a retrospective phenomenon, and a choice has already been made before 'we' become aware of having made it.  The only significant difference between decision making in humans compared to other animals is that we live our lives in much more complex ways involving complicated social situations and abstract concepts.  But choices still must come down to weighing the pros and cons of the options available to us, and just like the robin or the chimp, we go with the option that appeals most and we can have no control over that.

[Gordon]

But without knowing what generates conscious awareness, or how it works, how can you possibly come up with such a conclusion?  You can't possibly say how chips arrive at their choices.  Observations of what happens in the thalmic/limbic mechanism can only ever comprise a correlation of some brain activity with decision making.  It does not define how the choice is made or what generates the choice.

You are neither a neurologist or a psychologist yet the professionals in these fields don't seem to include the possibility of divine agency via the action of 'souls' in their investigations: this should worry you greatly, yet you seem convinced you know better. Of course were to ever realise that there is no basis to your pet theories then your particular brand of faith would collapse, but your immunity to reason and logic protect you from that risk.

You do seem to be suffering from an especially bad case of Christianity.     

[Alan Burns]

Alan Burns

have a watch of this , it might help

https://youtu.be/7t_Uyi9bNS4

I am familiar with Sam Harris and his arguments that free will is an illusion.  But there was nothing in this video clip which has not already been discussed in this thread.  I fully agree with the rabbi's comment that the free will of the human soul is a mystery, and it will remain a mystery.  The fact that we can't understand it or explain it in terms of human science does not mean that it does not exist.  And Sam Harris proves the existence of free will by freely using his considerable intellect and intelligence to try to explain it away.

[Sebastian Toe]

.....
 his considerable intellect and intelligence ...

Are they due to his brain or his soul?

[ekim]

It comes down to the same principle whether you are a robin or a chimp or an alligator or an insurance salesman : we weigh up our options and go with the one that we prefer in that moment.  None of us truly has free will in that situation because we cannot choose what our preferences are.  I cannot just decide to prefer coffee over tea if in fact I prefer tea.  The same goes for robins and chimps.  The whole thing about consciousness is a bit of a red herring, as we now understand conscious awareness to be a retrospective phenomenon, and a choice has already been made before 'we' become aware of having made it.  The only significant difference between decision making in humans compared to other animals is that we live our lives in much more complex ways involving complicated social situations and abstract concepts.  But choices still must come down to weighing the pros and cons of the options available to us, and just like the robin or the chimp, we go with the option that appeals most and we can have no control over that.

Another view might be that it all depends upon how you view 'consciousness'.  It could be seen as that which distinguishes a live herring from a dead herring, a living cell from a dead cell.  In other words, in respect of a life form, consciousness is spread throughout that form but its centre can vary.  If you tread on a piece of glass the cells in that area are aware of the event and the information is relayed to an appropriate centre which doesn't necessarily have to be the brain.  The delay in this case is not to do with consciousness being a retrospective phenomenon but to do with the transmission of information to a particular centre for life form survival purposes.  The foot jerks away before the brain can say 'ouch' because of a more localises centre of consciousness.  The choice is, perhaps, does one want to live a life like a jerk or aspire to expanding that consciousness beyond the programmes it has become attached to.

[ippy]

Another view might be that it all depends upon how you view 'consciousness'.  It could be seen as that which distinguishes a live herring from a dead herring, a living cell from a dead cell.  In other words, in respect of a life form, consciousness is spread throughout that form but its centre can vary.  If you tread on a piece of glass the cells in that area are aware of the event and the information is relayed to an appropriate centre which doesn't necessarily have to be the brain.  The delay in this case is not to do with consciousness being a retrospective phenomenon but to do with the transmission of information to a particular centre for life form survival purposes.  The foot jerks away before the brain can say 'ouch' because of a more localises centre of consciousness.  The choice is, perhaps, does one want to live a life like a jerk or aspire to expanding that consciousness beyond the programmes it has become attached to.

The process you're referring to ekim, was a big argument in our house when my brother was about a half way through his M D studies at Uni, my father was a very competitive first aider when he was a police officer he managed to achieve winning all competitions right up to national standard, my father didn't think my brother had it right about this Cerebro Spinal System, you speak of, where if anyone is burnt say by a hot poker on the leg the spine makes the leg move away from the danger and then tells the brain it has done so afterwords.

This argument my dad and brother had is emblazoned in my mind and it made me think to myself if anyone proves to me with unquestionable evidence that I'm wrong about anything I will make a point of making the admission I have it wrong to the face of the person involved, my Dad for some reason couldn't admit his error, even though he was point blank wrong.

This all happened when I was somewhere about 14 years old, I can remember it clearly, with all of the details.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

Are they due to his brain or his soul?

The brain - but it requires the soul to choose how to use it.

[Sebastian Toe]

The brain - but it requires the soul to choose how to use it.

..and it does that, how?

[floo]

The brain - but it requires the soul to choose how to use it.

In your opinion.

[SusanDoris]

Until five minutes ago, this site was 'this page can't be displayed'. Why after all day seeing this, it suddenly decides to display it is a mystery to me.

Anyway, I sometimes wonder when I read AB's posts whether it was worth waiting!

[Walter]

The brain - but it requires the soul to choose how to use it.

Alan Burns

political correctness and forum rules prevent me from saying the truth , however get some help

[ippy]

Until five minutes ago, this site was 'this page can't be displayed'. Why after all day seeing this, it suddenly decides to display it is a mystery to me.

Anyway, I sometimes wonder when I read AB's posts whether it was worth waiting!

Obviously Susan, you're not making appropriations of the right kind in the right places, just mail me for any other help you may need.

Kind regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

Obviously Susan, you're not making appropriations of the right kind in the right places, just mail me for any other help you may need.

Kind regards ippy

Thank you. I think it is mainly  to do with IE. dolphin have not yet made SuperNova compatible with Firefox or Chrome, so although there are probably many SuperNova users who have worked out how to use those others, I'll have to stay with IE.

[ippy]

Thank you. I think it is mainly  to do with IE. dolphin have not yet made SuperNova compatible with Firefox or Chrome, so although there are probably many SuperNova users who have worked out how to use those others, I'll have to stay with IE.

Sounds like a very 'Spacial perception' problem to me to me.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

Until five minutes ago, this site was 'this page can't be displayed'. Why after all day seeing this, it suddenly decides to display it is a mystery to me.

Anyway, I sometimes wonder when I read AB's posts whether it was worth waiting!

Hi Susan,
I get the same problem if I try to link through the EE mobile network on my portable wifi box.  But I have no problems connecting through my TalkTalk landline link.  So I suspect it is your broadband provider which is the problem.

[torridon]

Morning Alan, and Happy New Year to you

I am familiar with Sam Harris and his arguments that free will is an illusion.  But there was nothing in this video clip which has not already been discussed in this thread.  I fully agree with the rabbi's comment that the free will of the human soul is a mystery, and it will remain a mystery.  The fact that we can't understand it or explain it in terms of human science does not mean that it does not exist.  And Sam Harris proves the existence of free will by freely using his considerable intellect and intelligence to try to explain it away.

Free will is not a mystery, it is wrong.

Calling it a mystery is just obfuscation and euphemism where there could be honesty and clarity.

It is not possible to make a meaningful choice on a basis that is free of relevant considerations; rather, a choice is a consequence of it's determinant factors otherwise it is not a choice at all, but merely a random, totally irrelevant, event.

There is no evidence for free will, in its full sense, and there never can be because it is an irrational concept.  It is the concept of choice itself that is deterministic; whatever the mechanism of choice, whatever the chooser, be it a robin or a rabbi, a conscious mind or an unconscious mind, a computer program or a spiritual soul, none of these possibilities will turn a choice into something that it isn't. 

We live in a deterministic universe; some find that idea abhorrent, at first, but really it is the only possible sort of conceivable universe - a non-deterministic universe would be an illogical universe, where nothing makes any sense.

Ideas like free will and souls and Gods persist not because there is any rational justification for them, not because of any evidence for them, they persist because they are ideas that have widespread appeal and so remain popular even today.  Popular does not mean true, it just means popular, and the result when challenged to justify irrational beliefs is a deluge of obfuscation, evasion and euphemism.  None of that stands comparison with just being straightforward and honest about things.

[SusanDoris]

#25,398

Most justifiably in Forum Best Bits.