Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

Surly to be anti anything the person you speak of in this case, would need to think there was something there there in the first place to be anti about, or against, however you would like to express it?

I think you'll find that S D doesn't think there is anything there to be theist about in the first place, so quite simply if there's nothing there what's there for this person to be anti about? I'm not anti the non existent either.

As far as I know S D wouldn't be believing urban myths or any of the many theistic myths either unless they could be backed up by some verifiable evidence of one kind or another.

Regards ippy

Correct on all points!

[torridon]

So how would you define a feeling in material terms?
What is it that perceives a feeling?

Must ..  resist ...  Must  ... resist ...

Damn, here we go again.

Just because emotional states are hard to define in 'material' terms doesn't mean they don't exist, but rather we don't have the language and insights bridging psychology and neuroscience are still in their infancy. Feelings are ubiquitous through nature.  Give my dog food and he is happy; try taking it away and he will be angry; a fox being chased by hounds is terrified; a haddock caught with a hook in its mouth feels pain.  We shouldn't be still in the business of saying mental phenomena are inexplicable, therefore supernatural.  Mental phenomena are everywhere in nature.

[Sebastian Toe]

What is it that perceives a feeling?

You, you perceive the feeling. Your subconcious self precieves it and presents that feeling in your emergent concious self via a constant and very, very complex neurological feedback loop.
But for some people that is too scary to consider as it eliminates the need for a magic soul.

[Alan Burns]

You, you perceive the feeling. Your subconscious self perceives it and presents that feeling in your emergent conscious self via a constant and very, very complex neurological feedback loop.
But for some people that is too scary to consider as it eliminates the need for a magic soul.

But a complex neurological feedback loop is essentially just a perceived pattern of electrons moving round.  Human scientists may perceive these patterns of complexity from the outside because they themselves are a single entity of awareness, but there is no material definition for what it is that  perceives these patterns from inside the physical brain.  Conscious perception is still a mystery, and will remain so until we can understand our spiritual nature.

[ippy]

But a complex neurological feedback loop is essentially just a perceived pattern of electrons moving round.  Human scientists may perceive these patterns of complexity from the outside because they themselves are a single entity of awareness, but there is no material definition for what it is that  perceives these patterns from inside the physical brain.  Conscious perception is still a mystery, and will remain so until we can understand our spiritual nature.

Alan, it would be so easy to do surgery on you wearing all of your insides on the outside, no hang on, you've turned yourself inside out and back so many times, who knows?

Still necessary to wish you all of the best with oodles of kind regards Alan, ippy 

[Sebastian Toe]

But a complex neurological feedback loop is essentially just a perceived pattern of electrons moving round.

If you are not clinging to a magic soul speculation, it's not.

[Sebastian Toe]

T....here is no material definition for what it is that  perceives these patterns from inside the physical brain. 

...so you keep saying.
However as there is no meaningful, logical, spiritual definition for a soul, then using your own logic - it cannot possibly exist.

[torridon]

But a complex neurological feedback loop is essentially just a perceived pattern of electrons moving round.  Human scientists may perceive these patterns of complexity from the outside because they themselves are a single entity of awareness, but there is no material definition for what it is that  perceives these patterns from inside the physical brain.  Conscious perception is still a mystery, and will remain so until we can understand our spiritual nature.

Conscious perception is not so much a mystery as a complex phenomenon of mind.  Furthermore it is not fundamental, but a fabrication constructed by lower processes of mind; as such it is a derivative piece of personal fiction.  Have a look at Reply #25679 - I posted up simple but compelling demonstrable evidence of this.

[Gordon]

But a complex neurological feedback loop is essentially just a perceived pattern of electrons moving round.

Which is a reductio: if you go down that route then everything is just 'electrons moving around', but of course this is you falling into the fallacy of composition again.
 

Human scientists may perceive these patterns of complexity from the outside because they themselves are a single entity of awareness, but there is no material definition for what it is that  perceives these patterns from inside the physical brain.

Don't know about others here but I'm becoming weary of this 'single entity of awareness' bollocks - why not just refer to 'people', since it it people who perceive things, and more specifically their biology. That the exact mechanics of perception are unclear isn't fullly understood doesn't alter that a functioning brain is required (which is a clue).

Conscious perception is still a mystery, and will remain so until we can understand our spiritual nature.

Which is an example of begging the question.

[Alan Burns]

...so you keep saying.
However as there is no meaningful, logical, spiritual definition for a soul, then using your own logic - it cannot possibly exist.

What I should have said was there can be no material definition for conscious awareness, because material elements on their own can process information, they can react to information, but there is nothing within material elements which can consciously perceive information.  It is simply a physical impossibility.

[ekim]

Conscious perception is still a mystery, and will remain so until we can understand our spiritual nature.

You should look at Torridon's post 25707 and you should be more careful how you define or fail to define your words.  Conscious perception is the creation of percepts consciously and subconscious perception would be the creation of percepts subconsciously e.g. dreaming.  As Torridon has pointed out the mind can be tricked by e.g. optical illusions and I would add mental delusions.  If you do not understand your spiritual nature how can you talk about it, if you do understand your spiritual nature then you should be in a position to explain it better.

[torridon]

What I should have said was there can be no material definition for conscious awareness, because material elements on their own can process information, they can react to information, but there is nothing within material elements which can consciously perceive information.  It is simply a physical impossibility.

Particles of matter do not themselves perceive, but perception emerges from the interactions encoded on a matter substrate.

Look at a drop of water through an electron microscope, we might find it was made of atoms, inanimate particles. Do you imagine that if you looked at a piece of living tissue the same way you'd see it was made of living atoms ?

[Alan Burns]

Which is a reductio: if you go down that route then everything is just 'electrons moving around', but of course this is you falling into the fallacy of composition again.
 
Don't know about others here but I'm becoming weary of this 'single entity of awareness' bollocks - why not just refer to 'people', since it it people who perceive things, and more specifically their biology. That the exact mechanics of perception are unclear isn't fullly understood doesn't alter that a functioning brain is required (which is a clue).

Which is an example of begging the question.

But Gordon, you are a single entity of awareness.  The information in your brain exists as lots of discrete material states - it needs a single entity of awareness to pull it all together and form meaning to it.  The words on this post only exist in material form as pixels of light on a screen.  they only have meaning when perceived in the conscious awareness of human beings.

[Alan Burns]

Conscious perception is not so much a mystery as a complex phenomenon of mind.  Furthermore it is not fundamental, but a fabrication constructed by lower processes of mind; as such it is a derivative piece of personal fiction.  Have a look at Reply #25679 - I posted up simple but compelling demonstrable evidence of this.

All you demonstrated in #25679 is that human perception can sometimes misinterpret the information it perceives.   This does nothing to define what comprises conscious awareness or how it works.  You talk of "mind", but you do not say what it is in material terms.  Perception in any form is simply not definable in terms of material entities, because all that can happen in material terms is reaction to events, causing changes in state of discrete material elements.  The mind is a single entity of awareness which can perceive these reactions, but how can it possibly achieve this in material terms?

[Gordon]

But Gordon, you are a single entity of awareness.

Why not just say I am a person: a member of a species that has certain biological features.

The information in your brain exists as lots of discrete material states - it needs a single entity of awareness to pull it all together and form meaning to it.

It just needs the brain bit, Alan: me and my brain (such as it is) seem like one in the same, and even then my capacity to ascribe 'meaning' is determined by how my brain is operating. All I need do is go to sleep and my ability to ascribe meaning to anything is compromised,

The words on this post only exist in material form as pixels of light on a screen.  they only have meaning when perceived in the conscious awareness of human beings.

In other words you have learned how to read and write using symbols - big wow!

[Alan Burns]

Why not just say I am a person: a member of a species that has certain biological features.

It just needs the brain bit, Alan: me and my brain (such as it is) seem like one in the same, and even then my capacity to ascribe 'meaning' is determined by how my brain is operating. All I need do is go to sleep and my ability to ascribe meaning to anything is compromised,

The brain is wonderful biological machine which processes and reacts to information, but your machine has a conscious driver, which is you.  And when the machine temporarily shuts down during sleep, the driver no longer interacts with it.

[Gordon]

The brain is wonderful biological machine which processes and reacts to information, but your machine has a conscious driver, which is you.  And when the machine temporarily shuts down during sleep, the driver no longer interacts with it.

Here is an odd thing, Alan - when I go to sleep so does my brain, and vice-versa: where this 'driver' of yours seems to be just another aspect of my brain activity.

[Nearly Sane]

Here is an odd thing, Alan - when I go to sleep so does my brain, and vice-versa: where this 'driver' of yours seems to be just another aspect of my brain activity.

I am now inclined to watch Bagpuss

[Alan Burns]

Here is an odd thing, Alan - when I go to sleep so does my brain, and vice-versa: where this 'driver' of yours seems to be just another aspect of my brain activity.

But your brain is just a collection of material elements which, left to their own devices, would just react in accordance with the uncontrollable laws of nature.  But you are so much more than a blob of material reactions, you are consciously in control.

[Gordon]

But your brain is just a collection of material elements which, left to their own devices, would just react in accordance with the uncontrollable laws of nature.  But you are so much more than a blob of material reactions, you are consciously in control.

Said one blob to another blob.

[torridon]

All you demonstrated in #25679 is that human perception can sometimes misinterpret the information it perceives.   This does nothing to define what comprises conscious awareness or how it works.  You talk of "mind", but you do not say what it is in material terms.  Perception in any form is simply not definable in terms of material entities, because all that can happen in material terms is reaction to events, causing changes in state of discrete material elements.  The mind is a single entity of awareness which can perceive these reactions, but how can it possibly achieve this in material terms?

The example of the checkerboard illusion absolutely does shed light on how perception works. That we perceive it wrongly is not a freak accident, and nor is it due to some or other pathology.  Everybody sees this wrongly, so what it illustrates is a major underlying mechanism of normal perception, which is that our perception is not fundamental, it is a fit-for-purpose construction and the illusion demonstrates both the how's and why's of this.  The how's relate to the brain's maintenance of an 'internal model' of what the outside world is like, and this internal model is subject to non stop update all through life. What we see is primarily derived from memory, ie from the internal model, not from our eyes.  What we see is in essence what we expect to see given some broader context of meaning. The why's relate to relate to a cost/benefit calculation which requires brains to make perception a matter of maximum benefit at minimum cost, and this entails our brains using cost cutting guesswork to minimise calorific and time lag costs. All this shows that conscious perception is not what we think it is - it is not direct experience of the external world but a useful inner fabrication and it is not in real time, but subject to an inevitable processing time lag.

[torridon]

But your brain is just a collection of material elements which, left to their own devices, would just react in accordance with the uncontrollable laws of nature.  But you are so much more than a blob of material reactions, you are consciously in control.

Well, not quite, as you already know, this having been explained to you umpteen times already.  Conscious mind is not the real driver; how on earth could the end-product of the processes of consciousness be the instigator of them ?  Makes no sense.

[Alan Burns]

Well, not quite, as you already know, this having been explained to you umpteen times already.  Conscious mind is not the real driver; how on earth could the end-product of the processes of consciousness be the instigator of them ?  Makes no sense.

But your conclusion that our conscious perception is just an end product over which there is no control makes absolutely no sense to me, because I know that I am in control, and no amount of technical jargon can alter this.

[Alan Burns]

The example of the checkerboard illusion absolutely does shed light on how perception works. That we perceive it wrongly is not a freak accident, and nor is it due to some or other pathology.  Everybody sees this wrongly, so what it illustrates is a major underlying mechanism of normal perception, which is that our perception is not fundamental, it is a fit-for-purpose construction and the illusion demonstrates both the how's and why's of this.  The how's relate to the brain's maintenance of an 'internal model' of what the outside world is like, and this internal model is subject to non stop update all through life. What we see is primarily derived from memory, ie from the internal model, not from our eyes.  What we see is in essence what we expect to see given some broader context of meaning. The why's relate to relate to a cost/benefit calculation which requires brains to make perception a matter of maximum benefit at minimum cost, and this entails our brains using cost cutting guesswork to minimise calorific and time lag costs. All this shows that conscious perception is not what we think it is - it is not direct experience of the external world but a useful inner fabrication and it is not in real time, but subject to an inevitable processing time lag.

But all this says nothing about what it is that can perceive anything.

[Nearly Sane]

But your conclusion that our conscious perception is just an end product over which no control makes absolutely no sense to me, because I know that I am in control, and no amount of technical jargon can alter this.

  or evidence or logic, it would seem.