Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Just on the subject of faith schools, I consider their role to be valuable in telling young people what the Christian faith is and what it stands for.   I find it very disturbing that many youngsters today grow up with very little knowledge of Jesus or what He did.  In essence, they do not get enough knowledge to make a considered decision about their faith.

Do you hold the same opinions for muslim faith schools ?  Do you find it very disturbing that many youngsters today grow up with very little knowledge of Mohammed or what He did ?

[Maeght]

Just on the subject of faith schools, I consider their role to be valuable in telling young people what the Christian faith is and what it stands for.   I find it very disturbing that many youngsters today grow up with very little knowledge of Jesus or what He did.  In essence, they do not get enough knowledge to make a considered decision about their faith.

To make a considered decision as you put it they would need knowledge of all faiths. Do you find it disturbing if children are not taught about all faiths?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Always happy to pull you up on your ignorant caricatures…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bajzit-3VR4

I’ve explained to you that just throwing in pejorative terms like “ignorant” every time you’re out of your depth does you no credit.

As I said, if ever you feel like thinking before posting again I’ll be happy to reply. Until then, I’ll leave you to your private grief I think.

[Alan Burns]

More nonsense Alan, open your eyes, there is plenty of work going on in the science of perception, there are science journals dedicated solely to it, how can you be so blithely dismissive ? ......

The fact that a material explanation for conscious perception is proving to be so elusive to scientists is not really evidence to support your view.  I am fully aware that extensive investigations are being done, but there is still no definition for what it comprises or how it works.  Physical reaction to sensory information is not perception.

[torridon]

The fact that a material explanation for conscious perception is proving to be so elusive to scientists is not really evidence to support your view.  I am fully aware that extensive investigations are being done, but there is still no definition for what it comprises or how it works.  Physical reaction to sensory information is not perception.

yes we know reaction to perception is not perception; motor response occurs resulting from, or following on from, perception.

And the degree to which there are gaps in our knowledge does not licence us to imagine it to be magic of some sort.  Fact is, perception and consciousness are ubiquitous throughout nature; that we don't completely understand them yet does not mean they do not exist.  Go back to Aristotle, observe the world and then try to understand it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The fact that a material explanation for conscious perception is proving to be so elusive to scientists is not really evidence to support your view.  I am fully aware that extensive investigations are being done, but there is still no definition for what it comprises or how it works.  Physical reaction to sensory information is not perception.

What's the point in continuing to correct you if you just repeat the same mistakes over and over again?

1. It's not that there's "no definition for what it comprises or how it works" as you wrongly assert, it's that the understanding of these things is incomplete. We already know a lot about about consciousness (in contrast by the way to your knowledge about your conjecture "soul", about which you know nothing whatever).

2. Looking for gaps in current scientific knowledge and claiming ""God must the the answer" is just god of the gaps thinking and is therefore bad thinking. Even a moment's reflection should tell you that if you consider how many times it's been attempted in the past only for the gaps to close and for god to lose his hiding place. 

3. Your assertion that consciousness can never be understood is just that - an assertion, ie it's just an expression of your personal incredulity. And that provides no rational basis whatever to assert "god".

Desperate, desperate stuff Alan,

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bajzit-3VR4

I’ve explained to you that just throwing in pejorative terms like “ignorant” every time you’re out of your depth does you no credit.

As I said, if ever you feel like thinking before posting again I’ll be happy to reply. Until then, I’ll leave you to your private grief I think.

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. My post did not say Muslims don’t memorise the Quran or rock back and forth when reciting it. Some/ many do - it is not anything remarkable. The video does not support your imaginings that being promised “death in a blaze of glory and squillions of virgins” would be “Very sexy....if your entire education consisted of rocking back and forth reciting the Q’uran in Madrasas.”

. Whether you reply is irrelevant- I will still keep pulling you up on your ignorant caricatures.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

What's the point in continuing to correct you if you just repeat the same mistakes over and over again?

1. It's not that there's "no definition for what it comprises or how it works" as you wrongly assert, it's that the understanding of these things is incomplete. We already know a lot about about consciousness (in contrast by the way to your knowledge about your conjecture "soul", about which you know nothing whatever).

2. Looking for gaps in current scientific knowledge and claiming ""God must the the answer" is just god of the gaps thinking and is therefore bad thinking. Even a moment's reflection should tell you that if you consider how many times it's been attempted in the past only for the gaps to close and for god to lose his hiding place. 

3. Your assertion that consciousness can never be understood is just that - an assertion, ie it's just an expression of your personal incredulity. And that provides no rational basis whatever to assert "god".

Desperate, desperate stuff Alan,

I have given these quotes before, but just to remind you:

"The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology"   -  Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

In 2004, eight neuroscientists felt it was too soon for a definition of consciousness. They wrote an apology in "Human Brain Function":

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers ... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."


I know that lack of knowledge does not in itself prove anything, but I was just pointing out to Torri that he can't just presume that conscious perception is a natural function of a material brain.

[torridon]

I know that lack of knowledge does not in itself prove anything, but I was just pointing out to Torri that he can't just presume that conscious perception is a natural function of a material brain.

Well that would be the reasonable assumption, since it appears to occur in all creatures with brains, and its patterns eg sleeping and wakefulness that humans experience also occur throughout nature. That is our reasonable assumption.  What is not reasonable is to look for holes in our knowledge and use those as a pretext for licensing a broad strategy of denial which is all you are doing. With attitudes like that we would still be living caves grunting at the Moon. In earlier time we could not understand how the Sun moved across the sky so primitive peoples believed that it was pulled across the sky by invisible angels using invisible strings.  Then along came Newton with a much more robust description, which in turn was later improved upon by Einstein and now Einstein's concepts of gravity are being revised yet again thanks to quantum theory.  We never have complete knowledge, there will always be scope for refinement and improvement.  Each stage improves our understanding and we would never progress at all if we all had your defeatist attitude "it can never be explained, it must be magic".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

2. Looking for gaps in current scientific knowledge and claiming ""God must the the answer" is just god of the gaps thinking and is therefore bad thinking.

I'm wondering, if for you the word 'scientific' in the term scientific knowledge isn't redundant........In which case we are entitled to ask why you are using it all.

I think rather you think there are no actual gaps in science.....having missed the obvious thing about science...That it merely makes models.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. My post did not say Muslims don’t memorise the Quran or rock back and forth when reciting it. Some/ many do - it is not anything remarkable. The video does not support your imaginings that being promised “death in a blaze of glory and squillions of virgins” would be “Very sexy....if your entire education consisted of rocking back and forth reciting the Q’uran in Madrasas.”

. Whether you reply is irrelevant- I will still keep pulling you up on your ignorant caricatures.

Stop digging - it's embarrassing. Cherry picking like this is just dishonest (again). My contention was that telling lies to children is a bad thing, and subsequently in an exchange with Rhi that freedom of speech is nullified when a partisan set of beliefs dominates and excludes counter-argument, even conceptually. You called this a caricature, and I showed you that it wasn't. QED

If you want to talk instead about whether it also leads to suicide bombers and the rest I think there's a strong argument for that, but that's a different conversation.

I suspect that, deep down, when you spit the dummy like this you know that you've been found out but don't know how to process it. Maybe not though, which would be more worrying I suppose. Either way watching you lash out is unedifying so I'll leave you to keep claiming the victories you think you're having in your head if that's ok.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I'm wondering, if for you the word 'scientific' in the term scientific knowledge isn't redundant........In which case we are entitled to ask why you are using it all.

You're not entitled to anything, and I used it as a shorthand for "reason- and evidence-based" (as opposed to AB's and your guessology).

I think rather you think there are no actual gaps in science....

Well, at least Gabriella will be relieved I guess that you've taken back the Straw Man Monitor hat. Of course there are gaps - that's why people do science FFS!

.having missed the obvious thing about science...That it merely makes models.

Aw bless. So I've said here what, 10 time, 50 times maybe, that science is about explanatory models and you pop up to tell me that I've "missed" it. Bizarre.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Stop digging - it's embarrassing. Cherry picking like this is just dishonest (again). My contention was that telling lies to children is a bad thing, and subsequently in an exchange with Rhi that freedom of speech is nullified when a partisan set of beliefs dominates and excludes counter-argument, even conceptually. You called this a caricature, and I showed you that it wasn't. QED

If you want to talk instead about whether it also leads to suicide bombers and the rest I think there's a strong argument for that, but that's a different conversation.

I suspect that, deep down, when you spit the dummy like this you know that you've been found out but don't know how to process it. Maybe not though, which would be more worrying I suppose. Either way watching you lash out is unedifying so I'll leave you to keep claiming the victories you think you're having in your head if that's ok.

Stop trying to justify your ignorant caricature. It’s embarrassing. Almost as embarrassing as you posting a YouTube video that doesn’t support your caricature. Watching you be dishonest (again) about your failure to justify your caricature is unedifying.

Your interpretation of your stated intention to “not respond” seems to be to keep responding to my posts. Ah well, keeps you out of other mischief I suppose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Stop trying to justify your ignorant caricature. It’s embarrassing. Almost as embarrassing as you posting a YouTube video that doesn’t support your caricature. Watching you be dishonest (again) about your failure to justify your caricature is unedifying.

Your interpretation of your stated intention to “not respond” seems to be to keep responding to my posts. Ah well, keeps you out of other mischief I suppose.

Me:

I’ve explained to you that just throwing in pejorative terms like “ignorant” every time you’re out of your depth does you no credit.

QED

[Gordon]

I have given these quotes before, but just to remind you:

"The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology"   -  Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

In 2004, eight neuroscientists felt it was too soon for a definition of consciousness. They wrote an apology in "Human Brain Function":

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers ... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."


I know that lack of knowledge does not in itself prove anything, but I was just pointing out to Torri that he can't just presume that conscious perception is a natural function of a material brain.

The quotes don't help your case, Alan, since while these scientists recognise that knowledge is incomplete it isn't suggested in the quotes that 'souls' are therefore a possibility (since if they had said that I suspect you'd have mentioned it).

This is just more 'god of the gaps' silliness on your part.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Me:

QED

Not surprised to see you responding after stating your intention to not respond. Though you seem to have abandoned your entertaining little schtick about spitting dummies/digging etc. Ah well, no doubt after your afternoon nap you’ll be back to performing your full repertoire.

[Alan Burns]

yes we know reaction to perception is not perception; motor response occurs resulting from, or following on from, perception.

And the degree to which there are gaps in our knowledge does not licence us to imagine it to be magic of some sort.  Fact is, perception and consciousness are ubiquitous throughout nature; that we don't completely understand them yet does not mean they do not exist.  Go back to Aristotle, observe the world and then try to understand it.

In your phrase "reaction to perception is not perception" you are illustrating why you are getting the concept of perception wrong.  Our sensory organs do not perceive anything - they just react to light waves or sound waves and transmit this reaction which causes further reaction - it is just "cause and effect" all the way without any perception.  All we see in biology is physical reaction.  You need a conscious entity of awareness to enable perception.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

You're not entitled to anything, and I used it as a shorthand for "reason- and evidence-based"

New Scientist carried a good review on the differences between burgeioning 17th century French science which was based mainly on reason and English science of the same period which was mainly evidenced based.

Your lack of awareness of this difference therefore throws doubt on your conflation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

New Scientist carried a good review on the differences between burgeioning 17th century French science which was based mainly on reason and English science of the same period which was mainly evidenced based.

Your lack of awareness of this difference therefore throws doubt on your conflation.

Possibly you've missed the "17th century" bit?

Try again.

Actually, on second thoughts...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Possibly you've missed the "17th century" bit?

Try again.

Actually, on second thoughts...

You aren't getting it. The 17th century is when mainstream science departed from the French predominance of reason to follow the empirical pathway......Making your claim that scientific knowledge is equivalent to a kind of mashup between reason and evidence rather confused.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You aren't getting it. The 17th century is when mainstream science departed from the French predominance of reason to follow the empirical pathway......Rather making your claim that scientific knowledge is equivalent to a kind of mashup between reason and evidence rather confused.

You do know that nowadays the scientific method is a "mashup" as you put it of reason and evidence right?

And you do know that there are no longer different scientific methods depending on whether you happen to be French or British right?

And you do know that we were talking about the application of science now, rather than versions of it that were characterised differently several centuries ago right?

You've really gone off the deep end on this one old son...

...there's only one of us who isn't "getting it" here, and it sure as hell ain't me.

[Dicky Underpants]

....Making your claim that scientific knowledge is equivalent to a kind of mashup between reason and evidence rather confused.

Erm  - wasn't that a direction which Kant's philosophy took? (To whose thinking subsequent scientific thought and practice owes much)

[Dicky Underpants]

You do know that nowadays the scientific method is a "mashup" as you put it of reason and evidence right?

So I'd always thought. But then, I'm not a scientist (maybe true scientists like Spud and SwordoftheSpirit can put me right )

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

So I'd always thought. But then, I'm not a scientist (maybe true scientists like Spud and SwordoftheSpirit can put me right )

Nah, rank amateurs. For the real deal Nicholas "Sparky" Marks is your man - he's invented a "science" all of his own!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The salvation of your soul perhaps?

...

What is your little-man-at-the-controls/soul going to do for you today that your brain can't? And no, please don't bother to try and answer.

Yep. Nothing like a closed mind ...