Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

Just as an aside from the main theme of this thread:

Watched the programme, Ippy. Found it fascinating.  You're right about the African and slavery element, but don't forget the Irish clog dancing influence and the jazz element, which the programme als0 made clear. Tap dancing and hoofing was a fusion, and is still evolving.

I try to keep it short when I write enki, S D would have found the info you speak when on the iPlayer.

It was a brilliant prog, as you say, the usual standard of most BBC docs.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

Yes it is at least, if you follow the evidence to its conclusion. Why do you think it to be otherwise?
........
I hear the assertion (again) but as “perception” as you call it matches very well the model of an emergent property why would you just assert it to be otherwise?

But if the only evidence you allow is restricted to the properties of physical material, it is inevitable that you will conclude that the evidence leads to nothing more than an emergent property of material entities.  But you still have the problem of defining how conscious perception is achieved and defined within material properties alone.

[Alan Burns]

Prepare yourself for a shock, Alan: people and computers are different things (as things stand).

Quite correct, because computers do not have a soul.

[BeRational]

Quite correct, because computers do not have a soul.

Nor do humans!

[Maeght]

Transfer of information alone is not perception of information.  To achieve perception you need a conscious recipient of information.

Prove it.

[Gordon]

Quite correct, because computers do not have a soul.

Neither do I.

[torridon]

Instinctive reaction does not necessarily prove the existence of conscious perception.  Does a lion show any evidence of perceiving the beauty of a sunset?

Conscious perception is not defined by the ability to appreciate a sunset.

Fact is, all creatures with eyes have visual conscious perception, it is entirely natural, and ubiquitous throughout nature. It is the processing of information decoded from light waves through neural structures.  We can see and hear for the same reason that rabbits and eagles and snakes can see and hear - we have all inherited cortical structures through evolutionary processes.

The ability to appreciate a sunset is not conscious perception, this is our aesthetic sense, something quite different. As to whether this is unique to humans is a little more difficult to say.  Clearly conscious perception is fundamental to higher organisms, without it they would be dead meat.  Aesthetic sense is more subtle, and is something characteristic of humans; it is a trait that we have developed perhaps to higher degree than any other species although like everything else, it has roots, it has not appeared out of thin air.  The beauty of flowers evolved long before humans developed their own aesthetic sense with which to appreciate them.  Why do you think that is ?  What was is that selected for the evolution of beauty in flowering plants ?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You've done it again Gabriella, I remember a post I sent to you and all you did in your reply was to repeat back to me the very thing I had conveyed to you, the only difference was the composition, now you've had it explained to you the muddle you get yourself into, you obviously can't see this, so you throw your misconceptions, that for some reason you seem to think are clear thinking, on to others.

Try your best to sort it out Gabriella.

Kind regards ippy

It's fine if your brain is in too much of a muddle to respond. Try your best to sort yourself out. Or you could just repeat your usual muddled thinking about indoctrination of children. Or even have a go at explaining your muddled thinking on lifelong friends made at secular schools.

My deepest commiserations to you Ippy.

Kindest regards
Gabriella

[torridon]

Transfer of information alone is not perception of information.  To achieve perception you need a conscious recipient of information.

So, you haven't said, yet - what is it in the antelope that is the recipient of all that sensory information, interpreting it, acting on it, understanding it ?  Think it through.

[Alan Burns]

So, you haven't said, yet - what is it in the antelope that is the recipient of all that sensory information, interpreting it, acting on it, understanding it ?  Think it through.

Sensory information gets processed within the physical brain and induces an instinctive reaction.  There is no need for conscious perception in this scenario.  Conscious perception is only needed if we have freedom to consciously choose our actions.

[ekim]

We can describe what perception achieves, but this does not define what comprises perception, or how it is achieved.  Perception is an internal property, and can't be presumed to exist just by externally observed reactions.  Indeed, no reaction is needed to achieve the perception all experience as human beings.

I think what you are doing is treating 'consciousness' and 'perception' as synonymous.  Perception is more related to a process revolving around stimulus and the formation of precepts, concepts, behaviour patterns etc. which might also be inherited in the form of instincts, appetites and drives.  As regards 'consciousness' as a state of being, I don't know of any way to describe it and am not particularly interested in doing so.  I prefer to use it, allow it to expand and keep it as fresh and clear as possible and not confuse it with ancient expressions like souls, spirits and Holy Goats.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

Any creature that had eyes but lacked visual perception would not live long.  How long do you think a blind lion would survive ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cPlbO0zHw

[Alan Burns]

torri,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cPlbO0zHw

This brings back some lovely childhood memories of watching Daktari on television.   

[ippy]

Quite correct, because computers do not have a soul.

Just a thought Alan, how would you go about proving that a P C doesn't have a soul, only it's as likely to have a soul as anything or anyone else, there's equally as much evidence to support the idea of P C's having a soul as there is for people having souls.

What do you think Alan the Mr Magic, that nobody has found any good reason to think he she or it exists, might think of putting a soul into a P C that one day might be aware of its own existence.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy. 

[torridon]

Sensory information gets processed within the physical brain and induces an instinctive reaction.  There is no need for conscious perception in this scenario.  Conscious perception is only needed if we have freedom to consciously choose our actions.

Somehow it seems you still don't understand these terms and concepts.  We would be debilitated by a lack of conscious perception.  Here is a video of man with blindsight, ie he has perception, but not conscious perception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwGmWqX0MnM

Now, a human can still survive this condition, with care, but for animals in the wild it would be a death sentence.  Perception in humans is poor, however most other animals depend on it for survival.  Humans have lost much perception and gained instead a broad range of upper cognitive function.  I think you are mixing up perception with cognitive function, which might be excusable were you new to all this stuff; but given it's been covered on this thread innumerable times you ought to grasp it by now.

Now we've cleared that up, I'm still waiting for you to address the question you've avoided with your characteristic sidesteps - what is it in the antelope, or the lion, or the mongoose, that is in receipt of perception, what is it that enjoys the sensory experience of sight, of smells on the air, what is it that is the seat of experience if it doesn't have a soul ?

[Alan Burns]

Just a thought Alan, how would you go about proving that a P C doesn't have a soul, only it's as likely to have a soul as anything or anyone else, there's equally as much evidence to support the idea of P C's having a soul as there is for people having souls.

What do you think Alan the Mr Magic, that nobody has found any good reason to think he she or it exists, might think of putting a soul into a P C that one day might be aware of its own existence.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

Computers have no capacity to think for themselves.  Everything they do is entirely the result of pre programmed instructions generated from a free thinking human being.

[Alan Burns]

Now we've cleared that up, I'm still waiting for you to address the question you've avoided with your characteristic sidesteps - what is it in the antelope, or the lion, or the mongoose, that is in receipt of perception, what is it that enjoys the sensory experience of sight, of smells on the air, what is it that is the seat of experience if it doesn't have a soul ?

You can't say they are in receipt of perception unless you can enter the mind of an animal.  They are in receipt of sensory data which they react to in an instinctive manner, and this reaction does not need conscious perception, because its predictable behaviour could easily be simulated by logical computer type processing of the sensory data without the need of conscious perceprion.  Predictable external reactions can't be used to prove the existence of internal conscious perception.

[ippy]

Computers have no capacity to think for themselves.  Everything they do is entirely the result of pre programmed instructions generated from a free thinking human being.

I didn't say a P C has a soul, have another read.

[torridon]

You can't say they are in receipt of perception unless you can enter the mind of an animal.  They are in receipt of sensory data which they react to in an instinctive manner, and this reaction does not need conscious perception, because its predictable behaviour could easily be simulated by logical computer type processing of the sensory data without the need of conscious perceprion.  Predictable external reactions can't be used to prove the existence of internal conscious perception.

Oh really ?

So every creature in the world apart from homo sapiens is in fact a simulant, cunningly calculated to fool homo sapiens into thinking that they can actually see and they can actually hear and actually feel and enjoy and fear by giving the outward impression of having such inner life; but no, the entirety of nature is actually one huge great fraud elaborately constructed to trick humans; is this really how you see the rest of nature ?  No wonder we are visiting an ecological catastrophe on the rest of the natural world if there many that think like you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Computers have no capacity to think for themselves.  Everything they do is entirely the result of pre programmed instructions generated from a free thinking human being.

Try doing some research into emergent computing to see where you've gone wrong there. It's an active field, and it concerns computers (ie, algorithms) that produce effects that no programmer wrote into the code.

[Gordon]

You can't say they are in receipt of perception unless you can enter the mind of an animal.

And you can't say they don't for the same reason - right?

They are in receipt of sensory data which they react to in an instinctive manner, and this reaction does not need conscious perception, because its predictable behaviour could easily be simulated by logical computer type processing of the sensory data without the need of conscious perceprion.  Predictable external reactions can't be used to prove the existence of internal conscious perception.

All this is just mere contrivance, Alan: your attempt to make a special case for humanity being different since then you can claim we uniquely have this 'soul' thing. You're fooling nobody but yourself.

[Sebastian Toe]

Does a lion show any evidence of perceiving the beauty of a sunset?

Without getting into the mind of a lion, how would you know that it is not perceiving the beauty of a sunset?

[SusanDoris]

Without getting into the mind of a lion, how would you know that it is not perceiving the beauty of a sunset?

I await with interest AB's reply.

[ippy]

I await with interest AB's reply.

It'll either be a no answer S D, or you'll have to wait for one of his more hallelujah moment types of answer, one thing's certain it wont be anything in between these two.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

Oh really ?

So every creature in the world apart from homo sapiens is in fact a simulant, cunningly calculated to fool homo sapiens into thinking that they can actually see and they can actually hear and actually feel and enjoy and fear by giving the outward impression of having such inner life; but no, the entirety of nature is actually one huge great fraud elaborately constructed to trick humans; is this really how you see the rest of nature ?  No wonder we are visiting an ecological catastrophe on the rest of the natural world if there many that think like you.

All life is God's creation, and as such there may be many aspects of both human and animal life which are beyond human understanding.  The most fundamental difference between us and other animals is our ability to invoke acts of consciously driven free will which are not pre determined by pre programmed instinct and learnt experience.  There are many similarities in the physical workings of humans and other animals, and these similarities can make it easy to jump to conclusions about similar perceptions of reality between them.  The point I have been trying to make is that conscious perception is essential to invoking acts of consciously driven free will, but it is not essential to acts driven by instinct and learnt experience.