Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

There is plenty of research into brain processing of sound and vision.  Check out "postdiction", where both sounds and visual images are given to people, and they consistently make errors in perception, showing that the brain can be fooled.  More to the point, research like this shows how the brain processes incoming data.    What else would be doing it?

Processing data does not imply conscious perception.

[jeremyp]

To presume that all our posts are entirely predetermined before we make them is total nonsense as it would render this forum to be meaningless.

Why would it render this forum to be meaningless?

[Gordon]

To presume that all our posts are entirely predetermined before we make them is total nonsense as it would render this forum to be meaningless.

Just as well nobody seems to think that then: you seem to be attacking your own straw man here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course it exists.

The fact is that posters have had to use their freedom in order to choose to contradict me.

To presume that all our posts are entirely predetermined before we make them is total nonsense as it would render this forum to be meaningless.

Just out of interest, why are you indifferent to using logical fallacies so often? Here for example you try one of your favourites, the argumentum ad consequentiam. You know that it's a false argument because you've had it explained to you so often, yet you return to it again and again.

Why? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Processing data does not imply conscious perception.

Conscious perception is processing data.

Why is it so hard for you to accept reason and evidence when your alternative is an incoherent mess?

[torridon]

Of course it exists.

The fact is that posters have had to use their freedom in order to choose to contradict me.

To presume that all our posts are entirely predetermined before we make them is total nonsense as it would render this forum to be meaningless.

Freedom is not a thing or a power that someone uses, it is an absence of external coercion and free will only exists in this trivial sense, that we are free of external coercion. In a profound sense, that we are free from determinism makes no sense. To borrow from Schopenhauer, we are free to act on our desires, but we aren't free to choose which desires to have; so how free are we if all we do is act out the desires we have and over which we have no control.  If we could choose which wants to have, how could we choose them, except on the basis of what we wanted to want ?  Your conceptualisation is circular nonsense.

[torridon]

Processing data does not imply conscious perception.

So, you haven't said, what is your alternative explanation for how robins get around if they do not have visual perception ?

[wigginhall]

Processing data does not imply conscious perception.

I didn't say it did.  But when we look at perceptual errors, as with postdiction, we are talking about what people perceive..   The researchers ask the informants if they see a light, or hear a bleep, and can demonstrate how errors arise, by manipulating the context.

[wigginhall]

Incidentally, this kind of experiment has been used in psycholinguistics for decades.   If you record some speech, and then electronically delete certain sounds, people don't notice.  The brain "fills in" the missing information.  Postdiction is the opposite of prediction, it's retrospective.   Yes, and Alan will say this isn't conscious perception, yawn.

[Nearly Sane]

Floo,

He doesn't know what the ad populum argument is either.

Except his point that LR was using it in this instance was correct.

[Roses]

Except his point that LR was using it in this instance was correct.

I am right in stating that AB's views aren't shared by most posters on this forum.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Conscious perception is processing data.

Why is it so hard for you to accept reason and evidence when your alternative is an incoherent mess?

Computers process data.
Humans are consciously aware of data.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except his point that LR was using it in this instance was correct.

No it wasn’t. An ad pop is the argument that something is correct because lots of people think it is. That’s not what Floo said though – she merely commented that most people here don’t agree with AB.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Computers process data.
Humans are consciously aware of data.

And the evidence we have suggests that, given a sufficiently massive increase in complexity, there's nor reason in principle for a computer not to become self-aware - that is to say, to be "consciously aware".   

[torridon]

Computers process data.
Humans are consciously aware of data.

That doesn't mean that conscious perception is not information processing.  Computers process information in a simple straightforward sense. Perception is also information processing, in a more fundamental sense of the term 'information'.  A wolf, intently watching the herd, is processing relatively simple information encoded on sunlight in complex ways resulting ultimately in not just visual perception, but cognitive perception - it ultimately becomes meaning in the wolf's mind, by virtue of its association with something to eat.  This is nature's information processing, on a grand scale.

[Alan Burns]

That doesn't mean that conscious perception is not information processing.  Computers process information in a simple straightforward sense. Perception is also information processing, in a more fundamental sense of the term 'information'.  A wolf, intently watching the herd, is processing relatively simple information encoded on sunlight in complex ways resulting ultimately in not just visual perception, but cognitive perception - it ultimately becomes meaning in the wolf's mind, by virtue of its association with something to eat.

How can you show that internal awareness can be generated by data processing?  You cannot presume internal awareness by observing physical reactions.  Awareness does not require reaction, so how can it possible be assumed to be generated by reaction?  Without any definition of what comprises an entity of awareness, you will never be able to presume what manifests awareness.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And the evidence we have suggests that, given a sufficiently massive increase in complexity, there's nor reason in principle for a computer not to become self-aware - that is to say, to be "consciously aware".

No matter how much physical complexity you generate, it still comprises material elements reacting in accordance with natural forces.  You can't presume awareness unless you have a definition of what comprises awareness and how it works.  Moving electrons round a neural network may certainly produce reactions, but reactions do not in themselves indicate internal awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How can you show that internal awareness can be generated by data processing?  You cannot presume internal awareness by observing physical reactions.  Awareness does not require reaction, so how can it possible be assumed to be generated by reaction?  Without any definition of what comprises an entity of awareness, you will never be able to presume what manifests awareness.

He doesn't need to. You're the one who claims consciousness to be impossible by natural means. It's your claim, so it's your job to justify it. That's called the burden of proof - another mistake in reasoning you make a lot.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No matter how much physical complexity you generate, it still comprises material elements reacting in accordance with natural forces.  You can't presume awareness unless you have a definition of what comprises awareness and how it works.  Moving electrons round a neural network may certainly produce reactions, but reactions do not in themselves indicate internal awareness.

We see emergent properties in nature pretty much everywhere we look. There's no reason to think that consciousness - in our and in other species - isn't one such. If you want to claim it to be impossible though, then it's your job to explain why. So far the best you've managed is "laptops aren't conscious, therefore..." which even you should be able to see is hopeless.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just out of interest, why are you indifferent to using logical fallacies so often? Here for example you try one of your favourites, the argumentum ad consequentiam. You know that it's a false argument because you've had it explained to you so often, yet you return to it again and again.

Why?

I cannot possibly accept that it is a false argument because the explanations fail to give an adequate explanation for the root cause of any argument placed on this forum.  To presume that everything is entirely driven by predetermined physical reactions does not allow any mechanism for consciously driven validation which is essential in any form of argument.

[Gordon]

No matter how much physical complexity you generate, it still comprises material elements reacting in accordance with natural forces.  You can't presume awareness unless you have a definition of what comprises awareness and how it works.  Moving electrons round a neural network may certainly produce reactions, but reactions do not in themselves indicate internal awareness.

If you can't, as you say,  'presume awareness unless you have a definition of what comprises awareness and how it works' then you can't, as you've often done, simply assume that other species with similar biology to ours, such as other primates, aren't 'aware' - can you!

[Alan Burns]

AB,

We see emergent properties in nature pretty much everywhere we look. There's no reason to think that consciousness - in our and in other species - isn't one such. If you want to claim it to be impossible though, then it's your job to explain why. So far the best you've managed is "laptops aren't conscious, therefore..." which even you should be able to see is hopeless.

Yes.
Your opening phrase "We see emergent properties ..." is the clue.  It indicates that all emergent properties only exist as a labelled property in our conscious perception.  We perceive a specific functionality or pattern in our observation of physical reactions occurring elsewhere and give it a label.  This is a million miles away from being able to explain the internal awareness we perceive as human beings.

[BeRational]

Yes.
Your opening phrase "We see emergent properties ..." is the clue.  It indicates that all emergent properties only exist as a labelled property in our conscious perception.  We perceive a specific functionality or pattern in our observation of physical reactions occurring elsewhere and give it a label.  This is a million miles away from being able to explain the internal awareness we perceive as human beings.

But you cannot explain human awareness, so as NS says earlier, how can you assume other animals do not have it as well?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I cannot possibly accept that it is a false argument because the explanations fail to give an adequate explanation for the root cause of any argument placed on this forum.  To presume that everything is entirely driven by predetermined physical reactions does not allow any mechanism for consciously driven validation which is essential in any form of argument.

You need a basic grounding in logic to see where you’ve gone wrong again. The argumentum ad consequentiam is the fallacy that a premise must be wrong when it leads to a conclusion you find undesirable. When you start a post with, “but if X, then Y…” when “Y” is just something you don’t like then you’re committing the fallacy.

What’s odd about this (and about the various other fallacies you rely on) is a that at some level you probably know your arguments to be false. If for example I said, “the moon landings can’t have happened because I believe the moon to be made of cream cheese so the lunar module would have sunk” then you’d be able to spot that as an argumentum ad consequentiam. Similarly with the other fallacies you essay all the time, yet somehow when you try them in pursuit of your faith beliefs you have a blind spot about them as if in some way the conclusions “god”, “soul” etc somehow reach back to make a bad argument into a good one.

I’ve offered more than once to explain this to you but you’ve just ignored the offer. Unless you find some way through your problem of false arguments though you’re probably condemned to repeat them evermore.     

[torridon]

How can you show that internal awareness can be generated by data processing?  You cannot presume internal awareness by observing physical reactions.  Awareness does not require reaction, so how can it possible be assumed to be generated by reaction?  Without any definition of what comprises an entity of awareness, you will never be able to presume what manifests awareness.

There is no reason to doubt it though.  The wolf must be aware of its lunch otherwise wolves would pretty soon starve to death.  It looks to be aware, so unless there is some incredible undiscovered alternate process at work, the reasonable assumption is that the wolf is aware, and not just giving the impression of being aware.