Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All your external observations of the eagle can be explained by information processing, (apart from your own conscious perception of it).  Any conscious awareness of what is going on requires a conscious perceiver of information.  Information processing is not conscious perception.

Yes since you can have information processing without consciousness, just talking about information processing doesn't quite cut it.
This general point has been considered by respected scientists such as Paul Davies.

[floo]

I can't see how you can presume to know what is going on in a dog's mind by observing external reactions.  My own pet dog used to do little barks during sleep sometimes.  It may have looked like it was dreaming, but that is just trying to equate the dog's behaviour with our own internal human experiences.  Even if it turns out that dogs have some form of self awareness, it does lead to the conclusion that self awareness is a material property.  Dogs are still part of God's creation.

An assertion with no verifiable evidence to support it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An assertion with no verifiable evidence to support it.

I think Alan is quite right to warn of a reductionist anthropomorphism of an almost Disney like manner where dogs just become mini versions of people.
This is a development of mankind having to just be a combination of things found elsewhere in nature.
A kind of kit organism with no novelty. Thus betraying my biggest beef with this thread....its incomplete realisation of the phenomenon of emergence.

[Gordon]

All your external observations of the eagle can be explained by information processing, (apart from your own conscious perception of it).  Any conscious awareness of what is going on requires a conscious perceiver of information.  Information processing is not conscious perception.

Why does Torridon's awareness via information processing of the eagle require this additional 'conscious perception', which seems very much like the same thing as his awareness of the eagle via information processing in the first place, but the eagle just has an awareness of the rabbit via information processing but no 'conscious perception' of it?

I suspect this is tautological nonsense on your part, where this 'conscious perception' is just code for 'soul' - and you've yet to offer any good reasons to take the notion of 'souls' seriously.

[torridon]

All your external observations of the eagle can be explained by information processing, (apart from your own conscious perception of it).  Any conscious awareness of what is going on requires a conscious perceiver of information.  Information processing is not conscious perception.

Didn't answer the question.  Try again.

What is it in the eagle that is having subjective visual experience ie benefitting from all that preconscious information preprocessing ?

[torridon]

I think Alan is quite right to warn of a reductionist anthropomorphism of an almost Disney like manner where dogs just become mini versions of people.
This is a development of mankind having to just be a combination of things found elsewhere in nature.
A kind of kit organism with no novelty. Thus betraying my biggest beef with this thread....its incomplete realisation of the phenomenon of emergence.

Is that Vlad-speak for claiming that if you kick a dog it doesn't actually feel pain, it just appears to ?

[floo]

Is that Vlad-speak for claiming that if you kick a dog it doesn't actually feel pain, it just appears to ?

Good one!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that Vlad-speak for claiming that if you kick a dog it doesn't actually feel pain, it just appears to ?

Where has that been claimed?

[torridon]

Inferred from :

I think Alan is quite right to warn of a reductionist anthropomorphism of an almost Disney like manner where dogs just become mini versions of people.

If I try to take food away from my dog and he snarls threateningly, is my assumption that the dog is angry a case of 'reductionist anthropomorphism'. Or am I drawing a reasonable conclusion ?

[ippy]

Inferred from :

I think Alan is quite right to warn of a reductionist anthropomorphism of an almost Disney like manner where dogs just become mini versions of people.

If I try to take food away from my dog and he snarls threateningly, is my assumption that the dog is angry a case of 'reductionist anthropomorphism'. Or am I drawing a reasonable conclusion ?

Really like this one torri

Respect ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Inferred from :

I think Alan is quite right to warn of a reductionist anthropomorphism of an almost Disney like manner where dogs just become mini versions of people.

If I try to take food away from my dog and he snarls threateningly, is my assumption that the dog is angry a case of 'reductionist anthropomorphism'. Or am I drawing a reasonable conclusion ?

Firstly, wrong inference.
Secondly, because you anthropomorphise would I be right in inferring you bring your dog its slippers and paper every morning. Ha ha ha.

[Alan Burns]

Why does Torridon's awareness via information processing of the eagle require this additional 'conscious perception', which seems very much like the same thing as his awareness of the eagle via information processing in the first place, but the eagle just has an awareness of the rabbit via information processing but no 'conscious perception' of it?

I suspect this is tautological nonsense on your part, where this 'conscious perception' is just code for 'soul' - and you've yet to offer any good reasons to take the notion of 'souls' seriously.

I do not think you appreciate just how hard the "hard problem of consciousness" is.

[Alan Burns]

Inferred from :

I think Alan is quite right to warn of a reductionist anthropomorphism of an almost Disney like manner where dogs just become mini versions of people.

If I try to take food away from my dog and he snarls threateningly, is my assumption that the dog is angry a case of 'reductionist anthropomorphism'. Or am I drawing a reasonable conclusion ?

The fact that you are able to draw any conscious conclusion from your relationship with the dog is through your divine gifts of perception and freedom to think, which the unguided, purposeless forces of nature could never give you.

[torridon]

The fact that you are able to draw any conscious conclusion from your relationship with the dog is through your divine gifts of perception and freedom to think, which the unguided, purposeless forces of nature could never give you.

Why would a god, in seeking to create purpose, create purposeless unguided Nature ?

[torridon]

The fact that you are able to draw any conscious conclusion from your relationship with the dog is through your divine gifts of perception and freedom to think, which the unguided, purposeless forces of nature could never give you.

Baseless assertion; you'd need to justify that with reason and evidence.

[Gordon]

I do not think you appreciate just how hard the "hard problem of consciousness" is.

I do: but it is you who us trying to resolve it by inventing fallacy-laden theobabble that appeals to you.

[SusanDoris]

'this page can't be displayed' all day until a few minutes ago. I have been, therefore, catching up andcan't decide whether reading all AB's new posts and responses in one fell swoop is less cringe-making than reading a few at a time!

[floo]

'this page can't be displayed' all day until a few minutes ago. I have been, therefore, catching up andcan't decide whether reading all AB's new posts and responses in one fell swoop is less cringe-making than reading a few at a time!

Don't give yourself a headache.

[Alan Burns]

Why would a god, in seeking to create purpose, create purposeless unguided Nature ?

God created a nature which can be consciously manipulated to bring about His (and our) intended creations.  All the tools, facilities and materials are there to be discovered and used by using our God given gifts of conscious awareness and free will.  Left entirely to its own devices, nature can demonstrably create nothing but chaos.

[ippy]

'this page can't be displayed' all day until a few minutes ago. I have been, therefore, catching up andcan't decide whether reading all AB's new posts and responses in one fell swoop is less cringe-making than reading a few at a time!

I think there will always be those on the extreme end of susceptibility to being more heavily indoctrinated than others, I can't quite think where I would place our Alan on a susceptibility chart of say, one to five hundred, (one being the least indoctrinated)?

Five bill no?

Kind regards ippy.

[ippy]

God created a nature which can be consciously manipulated to bring about His (and our) intended creations.  All the tools, facilities and materials are there to be discovered and used by using our God given gifts of conscious awareness and free will.  Left entirely to its own devices, nature can create nothing but chaos.

That's just an assertion Alan, I wonder why you can't see this, it's so silly of you.

Hope all goes well with your conversion to atheism Alan, good and the kindest of wishes, ippy 

[Alan Burns]

I do: but it is you who us trying to resolve it by inventing fallacy-laden theobabble that appeals to you.

But you try to resolve it by assuming a series of unguided random mutations can create this unfathomable complexity which comprises our human awareness. 

[Gordon]

But you resolve it by assuming a series of unguided random mutations can create this unfathomable complexity which comprises our human awareness. 

Leaving aside your hyperbole, that is where the evidence points - and of course the evidence probably isn't all in, which is why some (but not all) humans continue to investigate using methods that have been developed so that they are reliable, and even then absolute certainty isn't presumed.

Makes more sense that clinging to ancient religious superstitions that are overlain with contrived fallacious nonsense.

[Sassy]

This made me think about why I like the blues, but do not like soul music.  And the answer certainly does pertain to the soul, because I find that soul music exposes the very self centred and indulgent qualities of the human soul, whereas the blues shows the more humble side of our selves.

I think the blues shows the nature and pain of ourselves whilst soul music connects us to other souls and life. IMO

[torridon]

God created a nature which can be consciously manipulated to bring about His (and our) intended creations.  All the tools, facilities and materials are there to be discovered and used by using our God given gifts of conscious awareness and free will.  Left entirely to its own devices, nature can demonstrably create nothing but chaos.

Bizarre thinking, that.  Why would a god create chaos in the first place, so that it has to be put right by later manipulation.  Why not just get things right in the first place ?

Apart from which, the gargantuan hubris implicit in it I find distasteful, as if this whole universe was created just for us humans, never mind those billions of other star filled galaxies, never mind the myriad other life forms that have come and gone on this particular planet, who cares anyway about the albatross chick choking on our plastic waste, they aren't really sentient are they ? They can't consciously manipulate things, that is the important thing isn't it ?