Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Without any evidence on how conscious awareness can exist within material reactions - it is down to faith, based on the presumption that there is nothing else involved but material reactions.

Any progress yet (theory, hypothesis and method) on how to go about investigating immaterial reactions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Without any evidence on how conscious awareness can exist within material reactions - it is down to faith, based on the presumption that there is nothing else involved but material reactions.

There are a least three types of wrongheadedness there.

First, at very best what you’re attempting is, “OK, I may be guessing but so are you”. Aside from being wrong in fact and in principle (see below) that would in any case give you no reason to privilege one guess over the other. 

Second, emergence as a phenomenon is well understood and consciousness as an emergent property is well aligned to examples of emergence we see all the time. Provided the characteristics of emergence are there – multiple components interacting relatively simply and consistently but without a centralised objective – then there’s no good reason to discount emergence as the explanation.

Third, a great deal about how consciousness works is known already. There are gaps in the explanation (which is why people like neuroscientists get up in the morning – to complete the gaps) but the explanation we do have and actually use for various practical purposes like surgery is very far from a blank sheet of paper.

By contrast, you offer a speculation that – aside from being logically contradictory and thus impossible – has no known correlate in nature, has no supporting logic to justify it, and has no evidence whatsoever to indicate that it’s correct.

As so often before, you’ve relied on your personal incredulity and the incompleteness of an answer to dismiss entirely the explanation we have already and to substitute it for one that actually explains nothing at all. As you’ve had all this explained to you many times already though and as we both know that you’ll just ignore the explanation so as to repeat exactly the same mistakes over and over again, why not have a fish instead?       

[Alan Burns]

AB,

There are a least three types of wrongheadedness there.

First, at very best what you’re attempting is, “OK, I may be guessing but so are you”. Aside from being wrong in fact and in principle (see below) that would in any case give you no reason to privilege one guess over the other. 

Second, emergence as a phenomenon is well understood and consciousness as an emergent property is well aligned to examples of emergence we see all the time. Provided the characteristics of emergence are there – multiple components interacting relatively simply and consistently but without a centralised objective – then there’s no good reason to discount emergence as the explanation.

Third, a great deal about how consciousness works is known already. There are gaps in the explanation (which is why people like neuroscientists get up in the morning – to complete the gaps) but the explanation we do have and actually use for various practical purposes like surgery is very far from a blank sheet of paper.

By contrast, you offer a speculation that – aside from being logically contradictory and thus impossible – has no known correlate in nature, has no supporting logic to justify it, and has no evidence whatsoever to indicate that it’s correct.

As so often before, you’ve relied on your personal incredulity and the incompleteness of an answer to dismiss entirely the explanation we have already and to substitute it for one that actually explains nothing at all. As you’ve had all this explained to you many times already though and as we both know that you’ll just ignore the explanation so as to repeat exactly the same mistakes over and over again, why not have a fish instead?       

I understand what you are saying, but for conscious awareness to be just an emergent property of material reactions, there has to be some definition of what comprises conscious awareness in material terms and how it works.  Correlation with detectable brain activity does not explain how conscious awareness works.  There are certainly many ways in which we can stop conscious awareness working by interfering with brain material, but this only implies that brain activity is part of the process - not necessarily the whole process.  My contention is simply that it is not possible for a single entity of awareness to exist within discrete material reactions.  Any pattern of reactions can produce an end reaction, but within this activity there is no mechanism or definition for perception of these reactions.  Material reactions can certainly mimic an act of perception to an outside human observer, but internally they are just elements reacting with each other.  Every molecule in your brain is just a replaceable part of a very complex machine, and the only element of continuity is your conscious self..

[Gordon]

I understand what you are saying, but for conscious awareness to be just an emergent property of material reactions, there has to be some definition of what comprises conscious awareness in material terms and how it works.

Why must there be a definition? Gravity isn't fully 'defined' yet things tend to fall down and not up.

Correlation with detectable brain activity does not explain how conscious awareness works.  There are certainly many ways in which we can stop conscious awareness working by interfering with brain material, but this only implies that brain activity is part of the process - not necessarily the whole process.  My contention is simply that it is not possible for a single entity of awareness to exist within discrete material reactions.  Any pattern of reactions can produce an end reaction, but within this activity there is no mechanism or definition for perception of these reactions.  Material reactions can certainly mimic an act of perception to an outside human observer, but internally they are just elements reacting with each other.  Every molecule in your brain is just a replaceable part of a very complex machine, and the only element of continuity is your conscious self..

This is just more of your incredulous waffle designed to manufacture a gap for your 'God'.

[Sriram]

It is not really about a God or any supernatural being 'out there'.  I would say that it is really about what 'we' really are. It is about the nature of our consciousness and our Self. 

 

[Stranger]

I understand what you are saying, but for conscious awareness to be just an emergent property of material reactions, there has to be some definition of what comprises conscious awareness in material terms and how it works.

This is staggeringly hypocritical. You have exactly nothing in the way of a "definition of what comprises conscious awareness" or how it works, and your attempts to explain it are not only completely evidence-free, they are self-contradictory.

Correlation with detectable brain activity does not explain how conscious awareness works.

Neither does hand-waving nonsense, incredulity, and logical impossibilities.

There are certainly many ways in which we can stop conscious awareness working by interfering with brain material, but this only implies that brain activity is part of the process - not necessarily the whole process.  My contention is simply that it is not possible for a single entity of awareness to exist within discrete material reactions.  Any pattern of reactions can produce an end reaction, but within this activity there is no mechanism or definition for perception of these reactions.  Material reactions can certainly mimic an act of perception to an outside human observer, but internally they are just elements reacting with each other.  Every molecule in your brain is just a replaceable part of a very complex machine, and the only element of continuity is your conscious self..

Just more hand-waving, incredulity, and baseless assertion.

We all know what your blind faith and incredulity are telling you, so why endlessly and mindlessly repeat it? Why not, just for once, at least try to tackle the arguments against it?

[Alan Burns]

This is just more of your incredulous waffle designed to manufacture a gap for your 'God'.

If you understood the points I made, you should realise that I am just highlighting the logic of what of what can and can't be achieved by physically determined material reactions.  It is by no means a manufactured gap - more like an infinitely unbreachable chasm when considering the nature of conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

If you understood the points I made, you should realise that I am just highlighting the logic of what of what can and can't be achieved by physically determined material reactions.

This is simply untrue. You have posted no logical arguments at all. In fact, you show no sign of even understanding the difference between logic and your own faith and incredulity. Neither have you been able to even start to address the logical contradiction in your notion of 'freedom'.

If you really think you have logic on your side, why won't you engage in a logical discussion? Why keep on "forgetting" everything that has been said to you and just endlessly repeat the same "points" that have been answered many, many times before?

It is by no means a manufactured gap - more like an infinitely unreachable chasm.

It is a gap in understanding that you desperately want to be "an infinitely unreachable chasm", so that it will fit with your faith - you have provided no reason for anybody else to believe you.

[Alan Burns]

This is simply untrue. You have posted no logical arguments at all ...

Then I suggest you re read my post #36902 and try to understand it

[torridon]

If you understood the points I made, you should realise that I am just highlighting the logic of what of what can and can't be achieved by physically determined material reactions.  It is by no means a manufactured gap - more like an infinitely unbreachable chasm when considering the nature of conscious awareness.

Who are you to say what can and can't be achieved by 'physically determined material reactions' ?  What is your evidence for that asserion ?

[Stranger]

Then I suggest you re read my post #36902 and try to understand it

I already did, and you had my response in #36905. Re-reading it does not change the fact that it offers no logic or evidence. All you are doing is asserting that a gap in our understanding of something that all the evidence points to means that we should consider something that has no evidence and offers no explanation  - in other words, something that is nothing but a gap in understanding. And that's before we get to the self-contradiction.

Do you really not get that "logical" doesn't mean "what I happen find to be believable"?

[torridon]

It is not really about a God or any supernatural being 'out there'.  I would say that it is really about what 'we' really are. It is about the nature of our consciousness and our Self.

For Alan, it's definately about a God that is out there, and a soul that is inside, both supernatural.  If your idea is the primacy of consciousness over matter that would be an improvement assuming that to be a concept that dispenses with the supernatural at least.  But you'd still need to describe what consciousness is when used in that context in a way that respects the regular use and meaning of the word.

[Alan Burns]

Who are you to say what can and can't be achieved by 'physically determined material reactions' ?  What is your evidence for that asserion ?

Material reactions can induce other material reactions, but this is not perception.  In the material world you have a problem in being able to define how perception differs from reaction.  No matter what number or what complexity exists in a network of reactions, the end result can only be another reaction.  Perception certainly exists in human awareness.  There is a body of thought which suggests it may exist in some animals, but without entering the mind of an animal, this can only be speculation.  What I can say, however, is that outside God's biological creation, there is no evidence of perception - only material reactions.

[Sriram]

For Alan, it's definately about a God that is out there, and a soul that is inside, both supernatural.  If your idea is the primacy of consciousness over matter that would be an improvement assuming that to be a concept that dispenses with the supernatural at least.  But you'd still need to describe what consciousness is when used in that context in a way that respects the regular use and meaning of the word.

In secular spirituality (Yoga, Vedanta, Samkhya) it has always been about the true nature of our Consciousness and how it forms the basic of the world. It has never been about a God out there.  Science is catching up now given Donald Hoffman and others.

We cannot understand the true nature of consciousness objectively because it is the essence of subjectivity itself. We understand things only through consciousness. The Mind can be understood, not Consciousness.

[torridon]

Material reactions can induce other material reactions, but this is not perception.  In the material world you have a problem in being able to define how perception differs from reaction.  No matter what number or what complexity exists in a network of reactions, the end result can only be another reaction.  Perception certainly exists in human awareness.  There is a body of thought which suggests it may exist in some animals, but without entering the mind of an animal, this can only be speculation.  What I can say, however, is that outside God's biological creation, there is no evidence of perception - only material reactions.

But this is wrong, flat wrong, you are merely peddling your own strawman definition of perception when you could be learning and growing your understanding.  You are just defining perception in a particular way to suit your agenda.  In it's proper truthful meaning, the evidence is that perception is ubiquitous in nature.  If creatures could not perceive or become aware or understand their surroundings then they would not survive.  This from Wikipedia :

Perception ... is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment.

All perception involves signals that go through the nervous system, which in turn result from physical or chemical stimulation of the sensory system. For example, vision involves light striking the retina of the eye, smell is mediated by odor molecules, and hearing involves pressure waves.

Perception is not only the passive receipt of these signals, but it's also shaped by the recipient's learning, memory, expectation, and attention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

The evidence is that perception is ubiquitous in nature; birds have eyes so it is safe to assume they experience visual perception, without it they would not be able to find food.  Dogs clearly have a sense of smell, just watch them exploring with their nose to the ground; rabbits have very good hearing, why else would they have such large ears but to listen for predators ?  Your contention that other animals don't have perception despite clearly having perceptual systems in place and appearing outwardly to use them is inexplicable to me.  Do you imagine that eagles are actually blind, but manage to perceive the world through some other undiscovered means ?  What is it that makes you so blind to the real world ?

[torridon]

In secular spirituality (Yoga, Vedanta, Samkhya) it has always been about the true nature of our Consciousness and how it forms the basic of the world. It has never been about a God out there.  Science is catching up now given Donald Hoffman and others.

We cannot understand the true nature of consciousness objectively because it is the essence of subjectivity itself. We understand things only through consciousness. The Mind can be understood, not Consciousness.

So what is the difference between consciousness and subjectivity in your view ?

[Gordon]

Material reactions can induce other material reactions, but this is not perception.  In the material world you have a problem in being able to define how perception differs from reaction.  No matter what number or what complexity exists in a network of reactions, the end result can only be another reaction.  Perception certainly exists in human awareness.  There is a body of thought which suggests it may exist in some animals, but without entering the mind of an animal, this can only be speculation.  What I can say, however, is that outside God's biological creation, there is no evidence of perception - only material reactions.

Utter nonsense, Alan: another of your desperate attempts to contrive a gap for 'god', and just as ignorant as your previous efforts.

[Stranger]

Material reactions can induce other material reactions, but this is not perception.  In the material world you have a problem in being able to define how perception differs from reaction.  No matter what number or what complexity exists in a network of reactions, the end result can only be another reaction.

This is begging the question - you've just assumed that no amount of reactions can produce perception. There is no evidence or reasoning here.

[Sriram]

So what is the difference between consciousness and subjectivity in your view ?

Consciousness (noun) is what has subjective experiences. It is just another word for the Subject, the Self.

[Alan Burns]

But this is wrong, flat wrong, you are merely peddling your own strawman definition of perception when you could be learning and growing your understanding.  You are just defining perception in a particular way to suit your agenda.

No.  I am not defining perception.  I am highlighting the fact that in scientific terms there is no definition for conscious perception.  The dictionary definition you quote has no explanation for how sensory information gets perceived into our conscious awareness.  And all the examples of how animals react in an instinctive way to sensory data does not implicate the presence of conscious perception.  Sensory data can certainly induce reactions, but reaction is not perception.

[Alan Burns]

This is begging the question - you've just assumed that no amount of reactions can produce perception. There is no evidence or reasoning here.

My reasoning is logical.  It is based on the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to perceive the state of other material reactions.  In a complex network of reactions, there can be nothing which perceives the state of the network as a whole - all the network can do is induce other reactions.

[Stranger]

My reasoning is logical.

You haven't posted any reasoning. Do you really not understand the difference between logical reasoning and assertion, incredulity, and fallacies?

It is based on the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to perceive the state of other material reactions.  In a complex network of reactions, there can be nothing which perceives the state of the network as a whole - all the network can do is induce other reactions.

See, that's just an assertion. How do you know it's impossible? Where is the reasoning or evidence?

We don't know how consciousness works but trying to argue that because nobody has yet been able to explain it in physical terms means that such an explanation is impossible, is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy.

You do understand that using a fallacy means that your argument is not logical, don't you?

[torridon]

No.  I am not defining perception.  I am highlighting the fact that in scientific terms there is no definition for conscious perception.  The dictionary definition you quote has no explanation for how sensory information gets perceived into our conscious awareness.  And all the examples of how animals react in an instinctive way to sensory data does not implicate the presence of conscious perception.  Sensory data can certainly induce reactions, but reaction is not perception.

I think you didn't read my previous post.  There is a widely accepted understanding of what is meant by perception.  Here it is again :

the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment

It is not about how animals react to perception, it is about awareness and how it comes about.  Your claim that there is no 'definition' for it is wrong, maybe that is just Alan-speak and what you really meant was that we do not fully understand perception, which might be correct, but there again we don't fully understand photosynthesis or gravity or quantum entanglement, but so what, that does not mean we have gleaned absolutely nothing about such things.

If there is a loud bang outside then that will startle me, that is conscious perception doing its thing; and it will also startle my dog, again, that is conscious perception doing its thing in my dog.  It's not like I have some magic powers to be able to hear things that my dog does not possess.  This is entirely natural fundamental brain function common throughout nature.

Do you understand this now ?  I really don't want to see you coming back with 'there is no definition for conscious perception' again in six months as if this hasn't been explained dozens of times already.

[Alan Burns]

I think you didn't read my previous post.  There is a widely accepted understanding of what is meant by perception.  Here it is again :

the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment

It is not about how animals react to perception, it is about awareness and how it comes about.  Your claim that there is no 'definition' for it is wrong, maybe that is just Alan-speak and what you really meant was that we do not fully understand perception, which might be correct, but there again we don't fully understand photosynthesis or gravity or quantum entanglement, but so what, that does not mean we have gleaned absolutely nothing about such things.

If there is a loud bang outside then that will startle me, that is conscious perception doing its thing; and it will also startle my dog, again, that is conscious perception doing its thing in my dog.  It's not like I have some magic powers to be able to hear things that my dog does not possess.  This is entirely natural fundamental brain function common throughout nature.

Do you understand this now ?  I really don't want to see you coming back with 'there is no definition for conscious perception' again in six months as if this hasn't been explained dozens of times already.

You seem to be referring to what is commonly termed the easy problem of consciousness which just deals with functionality issues.  Whereas I am referring to what is termed the hard problem of consciousness which involves defining what conscious awareness is and how it manifests within the physical elements of the brain.  You can find out more by searching for "hard problem of consciousness".  In essence it is the problem of defining conscious awareness in material terms, which is what my recent posts have been about.

[Gordon]

You seem to be referring to what is commonly termed the easy problem of consciousness which just deals with functionality issues.  Whereas I am referring to what is termed the hard problem of consciousness which involves defining what conscious awareness is and how it manifests within the physical elements of the brain.  You can find out more by searching for "hard problem of consciousness".  In essence it is the problem of defining conscious awareness in material terms, which is what my recent posts have been about.

Super - so, Alan, do those scientists and experts engaged in investigating the 'hard problem of consciousness' have a theory, hypothesis and method that is suited to your conclusion of 'god/soul'?

Surely they must, since you seem so sure of your ground.