Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

But what is it that perceives ?

You. Your brain. Your consciousness, sub first.
No, absolutely no need to invoke a pan dimensional, ex-universal, magical soul.

[torridon]

But what is it that perceives ?

What is it in a gazelle that perceives a lion creeping up on it ?  Conscious perception works in humans because it works in all creatures with senses and a brain and humans have inherited it.  There was a time when our ancestors needed to be aware of predators too. There is no need to invent some human-only magic to explain our powers of perception and cognition; it all fits within the grand narrative of evolutionary biology.

[floo]

Only because you can perceive it

Just because you perceive it doesn't mean it has any validity.

[Alan Burns]

What is it in a gazelle that perceives a lion creeping up on it ?  Conscious perception works in humans because it works in all creatures with senses and a brain and humans have inherited it.  There was a time when our ancestors needed to be aware of predators too. There is no need to invent some human-only magic to explain our powers of perception and cognition; it all fits within the grand narrative of evolutionary biology.

Can you please stop comparing externally perceived animal reactions to the internal conscious perception of human beings.  They are not the same thing.  Our conscious perception is not defined by our external reactions - it occurs internally as awareness without the need for reaction.

[ippy]

Just because you perceive it doesn't mean it has any validity.

Whilst I agree with you L R, our A B does love his comfort and really doesn't want his Mr Magic comfort blanket taken away from him just because there's no evidence available to confirm the existence of a Mr Magic to be found; unless of course if A B were to find where he has, mislayed, put his little evidence for Mr Magic book?

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

You. Your brain. Your consciousness, sub first.
No, absolutely no need to invoke a pan dimensional, ex-universal, magical soul.

So what is perception in physical terms?
You may try to define it as a pattern of electrons moving through a neural network of brain cells, but there is nothing in this scenario which shows how the pattern of electrons gets consciously perceived, or what perceives it.

[Sebastian Toe]

So what is perception in physical terms?

What are physical terms?

[ippy]

What are physical terms?

Something else A B, has come up with rather than either, supply tangible evidence for this elusive soul/god idea of his or admit he hasn't been able to find any.

Regards ippy

[torridon]

Can you please stop comparing externally perceived animal reactions to the internal conscious perception of human beings.  They are not the same thing.  Our conscious perception is not defined by our external reactions - it occurs internally as awareness without the need for reaction.

Not sure I follow that.  Perception is not normally defined in terms of 'need for reaction'. 

Perception varies doubtless from species to species, and as I've pointed out before, it varies significantly from individual to individual.  I cannot 'know' how you perceive things without being you, clearly, but I grant that you do have some sort of similar experience to me.  Likewise, I cannot 'know' exactly how a bat or an eagle perceives things, but clearly, they do have their own perception although it will vary in quality. Indeed, visual perception in eagles is reckoned to be far superior to that of humans, how else could they spot a mouse from 2000 feet in the air ?  There really would be no point in having eyes if we couldn't see with them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh for the gift of having no shame in declaring anything bleeding obvious and to be adored for having done so.

[Enki]

Only because you can perceive it

And I see no reason to think otherwise than that the 'I' that perceives is the result of activity within the brain. So, I have to regard your response, here, as particularly inept.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I see no reason to think otherwise than that the 'I' that perceives is the result of activity within the brain. So, I have to regard your response, here, as particularly inept.

Searle on Dennett on Consciousness

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

[Alan Burns]

Indeed, visual perception in eagles is reckoned to be far superior to that of humans, how else could they spot a mouse from 2000 feet in the air ?  There really would be no point in having eyes if we couldn't see with them.

Or just react in a programmed way to a visual image ?
As I said - externally perceived reactions are not evidence of conscious perception.

[Alan Burns]

And I see no reason to think otherwise than that the 'I' that perceives is the result of activity within the brain. So, I have to regard your response, here, as particularly inept.

And can you explain how the physical brain activity gets converted into conscious awareness?

[wigginhall]

And I see no reason to think otherwise than that the 'I' that perceives is the result of activity within the brain. So, I have to regard your response, here, as particularly inept.

Well, I recall people who couldn't remember who they are, and had to have treatment.   It wasn't treatment to their soul, but their brain, and they recovered.   Brain damage shows a wide range of symptoms like this, involving thoughts and feelings and speech of course.

But Alan has to set up a dualistic scheme, with an I which does the perceiving, so that he can equate it with soul.  As many people have pointed out, who perceives the I?

But as you say there seems little doubt that the experience of self is also generated in the brain.   When you fall asleep, the I is quiescent.

[torridon]

Or just react in a programmed way to a visual image ?
As I said - externally perceived reactions are not evidence of conscious perception.

You are trivialising brain function here.  Nothing in nature 'reacts in a programmed way', in so far as we can draw an analogy to a regular computer program as we might run today.  At least, nothing with a brain is that simplistic, brains are way more sophisticated than anything you might have on your desktop. Brains are learning devices, all brains.  The simplest animal behaviours, those we call 'instinctive' are the closest to what we could term 'programmed' but even to call those 'programmed' we are taking liberties with the concept.  Brains start learning how to deal with incoming from day one and each brain is unique and each animal likewise.  There is no such thing as a totally predictable animal, in practice, just a sliding scale of predictability and sophistication of response.  You need to get over this 'animals just react' mantra, it's holding you back.

Conscious perception is the other thing that seems a complete blockage for you.  There is no reason to suppose that creatures with eyes are somehow lacking conscious visual perception.  An eagle's hunting and flying skills are manifest evidence that it is experiencing acute conscious visual perception.  We can be pretty sure about this by the study of blindsight whereby we observe that individuals lacking conscious visual perception are greatly debilitated by their deficit. If eagles were similarly afflicted that would be evident in their behaviours.

[Gordon]

Or just react in a programmed way to a visual image ?
As I said - externally perceived reactions are not evidence of conscious perception.

The problem you have here Alan is that despite our species sharing key biological apparatus within other mammalian species what you really really want is for 'us' to be special - hence, for you, eagles just react when they see something whereas we seemingly do something extra, which is where you shoehorn in this 'soul' you're so fond of telling us about.

It's just relative biology though, and those mindless atoms whizzing about, Alan.

   

[Enki]

And can you explain how the physical brain activity gets converted into conscious awareness?

In the exact terms that you demand, no I can't, just as I can't explain why an atom should have a nucleus with one or more electrons bound to it, or why the proton has a positive electric charge or even why there are are such characteristics as the four physical forces. However there is overwhelming evidence that these things exist. And there is abundant evidence of the 'I' being linked to the activities of the brain, as, for instance, Wiggs has pointed out in Post 25914.

So can you explain how this 'soul' of yours works, either as an instrument of conscious awareness or how it produces conscious awareness, when there isn't any evidence whatever that this 'soul' even exists?

Unless you produce the evidence which answers that question then I repeat, 'I see no reason why the 'I' that perceives is not the result of activity within the brain.'

[Alan Burns]

You are trivialising brain function here.  Nothing in nature 'reacts in a programmed way', in so far as we can draw an analogy to a regular computer program as we might run today.  At least, nothing with a brain is that simplistic, brains are way more sophisticated than anything you might have on your desktop. Brains are learning devices, all brains.  The simplest animal behaviours, those we call 'instinctive' are the closest to what we could term 'programmed' but even to call those 'programmed' we are taking liberties with the concept.  Brains start learning how to deal with incoming from day one and each brain is unique and each animal likewise.  There is no such thing as a totally predictable animal, in practice, just a sliding scale of predictability and sophistication of response.  You need to get over this 'animals just react' mantra, it's holding you back.

Conscious perception is the other thing that seems a complete blockage for you.  There is no reason to suppose that creatures with eyes are somehow lacking conscious visual perception.  An eagle's hunting and flying skills are manifest evidence that it is experiencing acute conscious visual perception.  We can be pretty sure about this by the study of blindsight whereby we observe that individuals lacking conscious visual perception are greatly debilitated by their deficit. If eagles were similarly afflicted that would be evident in their behaviours.

But externally observed behaviour does not prove conscious perception.
Conscious perception is simply awareness which does not in itself manifest external reactions.

[Alan Burns]

And there is abundant evidence of the 'I' being linked to the activities of the brain, as, for instance, Wiggs has pointed out in Post 25914.

Linked, yes, but not totally defined.  I put it to you that there is much more to you or I than uncontrollable deterministic activity in physical brain cells.

[Alan Burns]

So can you explain how this 'soul' of yours works, either as an instrument of conscious awareness or how it produces conscious awareness, when there isn't any evidence whatever that this 'soul' even exists?

The evidence is that we comprise something more than what physically deterministic material reactions alone can ever produce.  I do not know how the soul works or how it interacts with our physical brain. I just know beyond doubt that my conscious awareness and free will are not definable in physical terms.

[Enki]

But externally observed behaviour does not prove conscious perception.
Conscious perception is simply awareness which does not in itself manifest external reactions.

In which case, as has been suggested before, there is no way then that you can prove that the externally perceived behaviour of human beings are any evidence of conscious perception in human beings, apart from yourself, obviously.

[ProfessorDavey]

And can you explain how the physical brain activity gets converted into conscious awareness?

Conscious awareness is the term we, as humans, give to the manifestations of physical brain activity.

So as an example we can talking about seeing (and not unreasonably consider seeing to be very significant), but it is simply the conversion of light energy within the eye into electrical signals via a complex sensor array (the retina) which is then subject to further complex processing in the brain. That's what happens - that's all that happens - but as humans we perceive (another manifestation of hugely complex electrical activity in the brain) it as extremely important.

[torridon]

But externally observed behaviour does not prove conscious perception.
Conscious perception is simply awareness which does not in itself manifest external reactions.

'Proof' is neither here nor there of course, strictly speaking, it is what the evidence points to that we have to consider and there is no evidence suggesting that eagles, for instance, lack conscious perception.  If this phenomenon were lacking in eagles we would be sure to observe the ramifications of that deficit in their behaviours.  A blindsighted individual is one that has (subconscious) visual perception, but lacks conscious visual perception and the evidence of that condition is manifest in their behaviours - they are blind, as near as damn it. An eagle, afflicted by the same perceptual deficit would not be able to fly and hunt, or at least not nearly so well as one that benefitted from regular conscious vision.

[Alan Burns]

Conscious awareness is the term we, as humans, give to the manifestations of physical brain activity.

So as an example we can talking about seeing (and not unreasonably consider seeing to be very significant), but it is simply the conversion of light energy within the eye into electrical signals via a complex sensor array (the retina) which is then subject to further complex processing in the brain. That's what happens - that's all that happens - but as humans we perceive (another manifestation of hugely complex electrical activity in the brain) it as extremely important.

Awareness may well be linked to brain activity, but not defined by it.  Conscious perception is not just another manifestation of hugely complex electrical activity in the brain - it is awareness of this activity.