Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

Such evidence certainly leads to a conclusion that specific, detectable brain activity is associated with consciously driven choices.  But the limiting factor in this is that we only have means to detect physical activity.  If there is also some none physical element involved in our conscious choices we have no means of detecting it.

That's a pretty big 'if'. Do we have any reason to think that there's a non-physical element? Is there any inexplicable phenomena that the current model can not, in theory, explain - I don't believe so.  Is there any evidence of behaviour in the explicable phenomena that doesn't tie to a particular input - arguably, yes, but that's more easily explicable as the limitation of our measuring equipment than to conjecture an entire non-physical element of reality impinging on this particular process (but, presumably, not on others).

We are still left with the problem of how conscious awareness can exist within physical reactions. Using the term "complex" does not explain how conscious awareness can be produced by physical reactions of material elements.

No, we're not left with that problem, there is no inherent problem in the current understanding.  It accommodates the observed phenomena and potentially explains the full range of human experience - more study is needed to more reliably tie that down, but the theory doesn't have a gap in concept, it has a gap in the evidence to support the hypothesis.  Your contrary proposition doesn't have a gap, it lacks any evidence of any sort, any rationale and any means of testing - it's an article of faith.

O.

[Sriram]

Physical vs non physical....

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

[torridon]

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.

No, I was describing perception, since that is what you were claiming 'had no definition'.  The hard problem of consciousness may be tangentially related but whatever the solution to that may be it will apply across the board to all creatures that experience conscious perception which is pretty much every creature that runs, crawls, slithers, swims or flies.  It is not something unique to homo sapiens only, we enjoy perception thanks to our shared ancestry with other species.

Do you understand this now ? 

[Alan Burns]

No, I was describing perception, since that is what you were claiming 'had no definition'.  The hard problem of consciousness may be tangentially related but whatever the solution to that may be it will apply across the board to all creatures that experience conscious perception which is pretty much every creature that runs, crawls, slithers, swims or flies.  It is not something unique to homo sapiens only, we enjoy perception thanks to our shared ancestry with other species.

Do you understand this now ?

You cannot claim that the hard problem of consciousness we experience as humans is the same in every other living creature, unless you can enter the mind of that creature.  The fact is that you do not know what goes on in the mind of an animal.  You can't prove conscious awareness from externally observed reactions to sensory data, most of which can be seen to be instinctive.

[Nearly Sane]

You cannot claim that the hard problem of consciousness we experience as humans is the same in every other living creature, unless you can enter the mind of that creature.  The fact is that you do not know what goes on in the mind of an animal.  You can't prove conscious awareness from externally reactions to sensory data, most of which can be seen to be instinctive.

Why are you being a hypocrite? You assert as part of your position that you know what goes on in the mind of animals other than humans, to the extent that even here you are arguing in a logically illiterate and contradictory manner that humans are not animals. Tediously stupid and illogical.

[Sriram]

No, I was describing perception, since that is what you were claiming 'had no definition'.  The hard problem of consciousness may be tangentially related but whatever the solution to that may be it will apply across the board to all creatures that experience conscious perception which is pretty much every creature that runs, crawls, slithers, swims or flies.  It is not something unique to homo sapiens only, we enjoy perception thanks to our shared ancestry with other species.

Do you understand this now ?

The problem with most of you is that you are not willing to accept even a philosophy that is inclusive of animals and treats consciousness as something that evolves and develops the way biological aspects do....but is not reducible to physical processes.  You are stuck with physicalism and attempt to explain  consciousness and mind entirely through  physical processes.

[torridon]

The problem with most of you is that you are not willing to accept even a philosophy that is inclusive of animals and treats consciousness as something that evolves and develops the way biological aspects do....but is not reducible to physical processes.  You are stuck with physicalism and attempt to explain  consciousness and mind entirely through  physical processes.

I am arguing on this thread that consciousness is inclusive of animals, it is Alan who is arguing the contrary, that it is a human-only thing.

[Sriram]

I am arguing on this thread that consciousness is inclusive of animals, it is Alan who is arguing the contrary, that it is a human-only thing.

Yes...that is a very Christian idea.  Humans are just a spiritually more evolved species....individual humans again being more or less developed than others. It is a spectrum. 

But your arguments  are not just against Christian ideas...they are against all forms of non physcalism. That is the hitch.

[torridon]

You cannot claim that the hard problem of consciousness we experience as humans is the same in every other living creature, unless you can enter the mind of that creature.  The fact is that you do not know what goes on in the mind of an animal.  You can't prove conscious awareness from externally reactions to sensory data, most of which can be seen to be instinctive.

Alan wake up.  Has this really not sunk in yet ?  It is not about proof, it is about balance of evidence.  Proof only exists in closed logical systems like mathematics.  In science we never look to proof and accept that all our knowledge is provisional until better data refines the current understanding.  But that does not licence the egregious unwarranted stupidity of refusing to admit to where evidence points.  We see this tactic deployed by all manner of science deniers, flat earthers "you can't prove the Earth is round" , young earth creationists "you can't prove the Earth is old", climate deniers "you can't prove carbon dioxide is the problem".  Are you going forever to align yourself with the idiots of the world or are you going to start being an honest person and witness.  For sure we cannot prove what goes on in mind of an animal but the exact same applies to other people. I cannot prove that you are conscious, but that is the way it seems. Likewise I cannot prove that my dog feels pain but that is the way it seems. I cannot prove that eagles enjoy eyesight but how else could they spot a rabbit on the ground from a great height it they did not experience visual perception.  How could any gazelle avoid predation without the keen awareness that derives from having auditory and visual perception ?  What evidence do you have that other animals do not enjoy some form of awareness ?  For sure, you have none otherwise you would have long ago posted it up.

Do you understand this now. or are we going to see you back here in six months time flogging this tedious misdirection "but you can't prove it" yet again ? 

[Gordon]

You cannot claim that the hard problem of consciousness we experience as humans is the same in every other living creature, unless you can enter the mind of that creature.  The fact is that you do not know what goes on in the mind of an animal.  You can't prove conscious awareness from externally reactions to sensory data, most of which can be seen to be instinctive.

Neither do you know, Alan.

Your use of 'prove' here just confirms how much your efforts to accommodate your bespoke version of religious faith is screwing-up your ability to reason, since whenever you try to you do so in direct opposition to the available evidence you fail miserably (hence your fondness for fallacies) - you operate exclusively in 'not even wrong' territory.

[Outrider]

The problem with most of you is that you are not willing to accept even a philosophy that is inclusive of animals and treats consciousness as something that evolves and develops the way biological aspects do....but is not reducible to physical processes.  You are stuck with physicalism and attempt to explain  consciousness and mind entirely through  physical processes.

I don't see why that's a problem? We have an explanation for the phenomena that works, that has supporting evidence, and we have hypotheses built upon that understanding that we hope to evidence in the future as our understanding develops - where's the problem?

I think you have a problem, inasmuch as we have that explanation and understanding and don't need any of the supernatural explanations we've inherited from antiquity so you have to try to shoe-horn them into gaps.

O.

[Sriram]

I don't see why that's a problem? We have an explanation for the phenomena that works, that has supporting evidence, and we have hypotheses built upon that understanding that we hope to evidence in the future as our understanding develops - where's the problem?

I think you have a problem, inasmuch as we have that explanation and understanding and don't need any of the supernatural explanations we've inherited from antiquity so you have to try to shoe-horn them into gaps.

O.

We cannot understand reality through physical reductionism.  Even the world we sense is not 'real'  in a fundamental sense. This is what some people (neuroscientists and physicists) are beginning to understand.  They are identifying  consciousness as the fundamental reality.   Now...why should anyone have a problem with that?!

[Bramble]

What does "'real'  in a fundamental sense" mean? How might consciousness qualify?

[Outrider]

We cannot understand reality through physical reductionism.

Which we is this? I'm doing reasonably well on that basis, and I don't see any intrinsic problems.

Even the world we sense is not 'real'  in a fundamental sense. This is what some people (neuroscientists and physicists) are beginning to understand.

It's as real as any other understanding - that it has limitations does not make it less real, it makes our intrinsic understanding less complete.

They are identifying  consciousness as the fundamental reality.

There are people doing that, but they're not typically neuroscientists or physicists.  Neuroscientists, in some instances, are demonstrating that we operate in most instances as though the real world matched our perception of it, but that's not the same as them identifying that 'consciousness is the fundamental reality' it's just another way of noting that our perception of reality is only a partial picture.

Now...why should anyone have a problem with that?!

Because it's not true.  Because what it claims is even less well evidenced than the gaps in the evidence that it's being shoehorned into.

O.

[Sriram]

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16814.0

[wigginhall]

I'm curious as to what fundamental reality is.  Is it conceived to lie underneath other kinds of reality, such as experience?  And how can we tell that it is the foundation?  X-post with Bramble.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Yes...that is a very Christian idea.  Humans are just a spiritually more evolved species....individual humans again being more or less developed than others. It is a spectrum.

But your arguments  are not just against Christian ideas...they are against all forms of non physcalism. That is the hitch.

Wrong again. Physicalism is the position that all that there is is necessarily "physical". And no doubt if you looked hard enough you might even find some people who hold that view. Not here though, or at least so far as I can tell. The materialist on the other hand merely says that truth claims involving the material are the only ones we have methods to investigate, and thus to ascribe values like "probably true" and "probably not true" to. You can of course have subjective beliefs in any example of a non-physical you like - auras, biofields, unicorns, Jack Frost, you name it. It doesn't mater at all which you happen to prefer because in epistemic terms they're identical - unqualified clams of fact (or "guesses") in other words - with no means of investigation and verification to justify the belief.

That's where the twit who made the video you linked to went wrong: "Science has found all sorts of counter-intuitive stuff to be true, therefore any counter-intuitive stuff that pops into my head must be true too". Nope, and nope again with sprinkles on. Doesn't work at all.         

[Sriram]

Interesting.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup3s86oJXU

[Alan Burns]

Alan wake up.  Has this really not sunk in yet ?  It is not about proof, it is about balance of evidence.  Proof only exists in closed logical systems like mathematics.  In science we never look to proof and accept that all our knowledge is provisional until better data refines the current understanding.  But that does not licence the egregious unwarranted stupidity of refusing to admit to where evidence points.  We see this tactic deployed by all manner of science deniers, flat earthers "you can't prove the Earth is round" , young earth creationists "you can't prove the Earth is old", climate deniers "you can't prove carbon dioxide is the problem".  Are you going forever to align yourself with the idiots of the world or are you going to start being an honest person and witness.  For sure we cannot prove what goes on in mind of an animal but the exact same applies to other people. I cannot prove that you are conscious, but that is the way it seems. Likewise I cannot prove that my dog feels pain but that is the way it seems. I cannot prove that eagles enjoy eyesight but how else could they spot a rabbit on the ground from a great height it they did not experience visual perception.  How could any gazelle avoid predation without the keen awareness that derives from having auditory and visual perception ?  What evidence do you have that other animals do not enjoy some form of awareness ?  For sure, you have none otherwise you would have long ago posted it up.

There is one form of awareness which animals apparently do not have, and that is awareness of our own spiritual nature and God.  The conscious freedom which enables us to come to this awareness also enables some of us to seek out reasons not to believe in the existence of their spiritual nature, or God, or even their own conscious freedom, (as aptly demonstrated in this thread with its very appropriate opening post).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is one form of awareness which animals apparently do not have, and that is awareness of our own spiritual nature and God.

That's not an "awareness", it's a belief and moreover it's a belief that, so far at least, you've never managed to justify.

The conscious freedom which enables us to come to this awareness also enables some of us to seek out reasons not to believe in the existence of their spiritual nature or of God, and even in their own conscious freedom.

Why do you just ignore the explanations for why this is utter nonsense and then just repeat the same utter nonsense over and over again like a broken speak your weight machine? People don't "believe in the existence of their spiritual nature or of God" for the simple reason that they haven't been given good enough reasons to do otherwise. 

[torridon]

There is one form of awareness which animals apparently do not have, and that is awareness of our own spiritual nature and God.  The conscious freedom which enables us to come to this awareness also enables some of us to seek out reasons not to believe in the existence of their spiritual nature or of God, or even their own conscious freedom, as aptly demonstrated in this thread with its very appropriate opening post.

Firstly, awareness of God is not an aspect of consciousness in humans either, it is an abstract belief and claim held by a percentage of the population.  If it were part of the human conscious experience, then everybody would be thus aware.

Secondly, so you are happy to endorse assumptions about imprenetrable animal minds when it suits, but deny them when it doesn't suit your agenda with your 'can't prove it' shtick. You are happy to observe that animals are not aware of god but you aren't happy to acknowledge that they are aware of more immediate threats and opportiunities in their environment.

Why the double standards ?

[Gordon]

There is one form of awareness which animals apparently do not have, and that is awareness of our own spiritual nature and God.

You mean 'belief' Alan, and not 'awareness' - you may have a point though since I'm an animal and have neither a 'spiritual nature' nor an 'awareness' of 'God', though I can't speak for other animals.

The conscious freedom which enables us to come to this awareness also enables some of us to seek out reasons not to believe in the existence of their spiritual nature, or God, or even their own conscious freedom, (as aptly demonstrated in this thread with its very appropriate opening post).

I don't seek reasons not to believe in 'God': but then you know that already since it has been explained to you before - the issue is the lack of good reasons to take the notion of 'God' seriously.. 

[Stranger]

There is one form of awareness which animals apparently do not have, and that is awareness of our own spiritual nature and God.

There is no evidence that this is an awareness, it has more in common with a superstition - something that other animals do show signs of ('Superstition' in the pigeon) .

The conscious freedom...

A "freedom" that, as you have defined it, is self-contradictory and hence not only impossible but unimaginable. Literally nonsensical.

...which enables us to come to this awareness also enables some of us to seek out reasons not to believe in the existence of their spiritual nature, or God, or even their own conscious freedom...

Why will you never learn anything? This is another basic mistake in logic. Nobody needs a reason not to believe in a proposition - it is up to those who propose things, like the existence of one or more of the thousands of gods humans have conceived of, to provide the reasons. If the proposition is literally nonsensical (as your definition of "freedom" is) no reasons are even possible.

[Outrider]

There is one form of awareness which animals apparently do not have, and that is awareness of our own spiritual nature and God.

On the basis that we're animals, I'd agree entirely - some of us appear to think that we do, but it's far from established in any meaningful sense.

The conscious freedom which enables us to come to this awareness also enables some of us to seek out reasons not to believe in the existence of their spiritual nature, or God, or even their own conscious freedom, (as aptly demonstrated in this thread with its very appropriate opening post).

The fact that 'conscious freedom' is apparently a false sense of conscious freedom sort of fundamentally undermines that.

O.

[Alan Burns]

The fact that 'conscious freedom' is apparently a false sense of conscious freedom sort of fundamentally undermines that.

If our conscious freedom is not a reality, how could anyone have the freedom to think up reasons to believe, or not believe in the existence of a Creator?