Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Nowhere does the author acknowledge that he himself is a human being subject to the constraints implied by his own conclusions and apparently fails to comprehend how he can possibly come up with such an in depth analysis when he himself does not have an active, executive role in determining his own behaviour.

The paper didn't say that "he himself does not have an active, executive role in determining his own behaviour". It is you who don't seem to understand that people are much more than the content of their conscious minds.

And let's no forget that your own 'explanation' is logically impossible.

[torridon]

When certain brain activity shuts down, responses to sensory data will not be activated.  Your problem is in assuming that conscious perception is somehow achieved by material reactions alone.  It is instinctive, programmed behaviour which can be achieved by material reactions.  Conscious perception in itself does not require or induce reaction.  It involves awareness of data - not reaction to it.  Our conscious awareness is the means to allow us freedom to choose how, when and where to react.  It is part of God's miraculous gift of life which we all enjoy, even though we take it so much for granted.

Alan you are still confusing perception with response.  We do not define consciousness in terms of the difference between instinctive and learned behaviours.  Any behavioural response requires awareness of the thing responded to irrespective whether the response is instinctive or something more complex.  No bear has ever been observed hunting for food whilst it was hibernating.  You need awareness (of the food source) in the first place in order to eat it. 

If you are planning to write a book about this stuff you need to come up to speed with understanding the concepts and terminology.  Many higher creatures display behaviours that go way beyond merely instinctive.  An instinctive behaviour might be to breathe in a lungfull of air, or to hold your breathe while submerged, or to suckle on a teat if you are a newborn mammal.  On the other hand, a snow leopard does not know instinctively how to catch a mountain hare, this behaviour is too complex to be encoded in DNA and the individual has to learn how to do it, by watching its mother and by trial and error.   It needs to build understanding, in other words, and conscious awareness is a prerequisite for this.  Nobody, an no thing, learns effectively whilst unconscious.

[Alan Burns]

Alan you are still confusing perception with response.  We do not define consciousness in terms of the difference between instinctive and learned behaviours.  Any behavioural response requires awareness of the thing responded to irrespective whether the response is instinctive or something more complex.  No bear has ever been observed hunting for food whilst it was hibernating.  You need awareness (of the food source) in the first place in order to eat it. 

No
You just need instinctive reactions to sensory data.
Awareness is not defined by reactions.

If you are planning to write a book about this stuff you need to come up to speed with understanding the concepts and terminology.  Many higher creatures display behaviours that go way beyond merely instinctive.  An instinctive behaviour might be to breathe in a lungfull of air, or to hold your breathe while submerged, or to suckle on a teat if you are a newborn mammal.  On the other hand, a snow leopard does not know instinctively how to catch a mountain hare, this behaviour is too complex to be encoded in DNA and the individual has to learn how to do it, by watching its mother and by trial and error.   It needs to build understanding, in other words, and conscious awareness is a prerequisite for this.  Nobody, an no thing, learns effectively whilst unconscious.

Learnt behaviour does not require awareness.
The learning process can be programmed in to the instinctive behaviour, as can be demonstrated in computerised chess players which learn from past games.
You cannot presume to know that animals have the same sense of awareness as humans.  You can't see inside the mind of an animal.

[Nearly Sane]

No
You just need instinctive reactions to sensory data.
Awareness is not defined by reactions.Learnt behaviour does not require awareness.
The learning process can be programmed in to the instinctive behaviour, as can be demonstrated in computerised chess players which learn from past games.
You cannot presume to know that animals have the same sense of awareness as humans.  You can't see inside the mind of an animal.

We are animals.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again: since nobody disputes our ability to compose posts on this forum, claiming it as evidence of your own, impossible, contradictory 'explanation' of it is either mind-numbingly stupid, shows in incredible lack of understanding of what evidence is, or is stunningly dishonest.

What is impossible in your scenario is for me to have any personal control of past events, which would completely remove any personal input to what I post.  Your flawed scenario makes it a logical impossibility for me to personally compose anything.

[SteveH]

We are animals.

But not necessarily just animals. This is ontological reductionism, alias nothing-buttery.

[Nearly Sane]

But not necessarily just animals. This is ontological reductionism, alias nothing-buttery.

What does 'just animal's mean? What claim, if any, are you making about humans that means they are not 'just animals'? If you are making a ckaim, outline what your evidence is for it.

[SteveH]

What does 'just animal's mean? What claim, if any, are you making about humans that means they are not 'just animals'? If you are making a ckaim, outline what your evidence is for it.

We are self-aware, and capable of altering our environment and making progress. We have a spiritual capacity. Other asnimals don't and aren't. (I did say "not necessarily.)

[Roses]

We are self-aware, and capable of altering our environment and making progress. We have a spiritual capacity. Other asnimals don't and aren't. (I did say "not necessarily.)

We don't know for sure what goes on in the minds of other animal species, maybe they have created their own gods too.

[Nearly Sane]

We don't know for sure what goes on in the minds of other animal species, maybe they have created their own gods too.

We don't know for sure what goes on in the minds of other humans, nor in feed in reality what goes on in our own minds

[Nearly Sane]

We are self-aware, and capable of altering our environment and making progress. We have a spiritual capacity. Other asnimals don't and aren't. (I did say "not necessarily.)

Ah so your evidence is an assertion. Try again.

[Nearly Sane]

We are self-aware, and capable of altering our environment and making progress. We have a spiritual capacity. Other asnimals don't and aren't. (I did say "not necessarily.)

Oh and you haven't done any definition of terms so it isn't clear what you mean by your assertions.

[Stranger]

What is impossible in your scenario is for me to have any personal control of past events, which would completely remove any personal input to what I post.  Your flawed scenario makes it a logical impossibility for me to personally compose anything.

Oh FFS Alan, how many more times do you need this nonsense corrected, before you actually address the answers, rather than mindlessly repeating the same things over and over again?

You are just assuming your conclusion, namely that there is a "you" that is separate from cause and effect and would therefore have no control. The only logically self-consistent view is that you are part of cause and effect. The "you" that is exercising control is doing so for reasons. Those reasons being the person you have become due to your nature, nurture, and experience and the circumstances you are faced with. If there were to be any other ingredient to a choice it would have to be nothing to do with you or the choice, so it cannot possibly add to your control or freedom; it would be for no reason, just random.

If you think there is something wrong with that reasoning, why not say what? And try to avoid you past mistakes, like trying to arbitrarily redefine the word "control", or an appeal to consequences, or personal incredulity, or baseless assertion.

[Enki]

The article you cite would appear to be written by a very intelligent alien investigating the biological functionality of human beings, and coming up with the conclusion that :

contrary to one's intuitive understanding, consciousness does not have an active, executive role in determining behaviour

Nowhere does the author acknowledge that he himself is a human being subject to the constraints implied by his own conclusions and apparently fails to comprehend how he can possibly come up with such an in depth analysis when he himself does not have an active, executive role in determining his own behaviour.

Are you seriously suggesting that he should have introduced himself as a human being before putting forward his paper?    The mind boggles.

However  to address your worries, I am a human being now addressing you. The idea that the 'me' doesn't include my unconscious mind seems utterly silly to me, especially as there is a large weight of evidence which points in this direction.
 Hence your idea that 'he himself does not have an active,executive role in determining behaviour' is rather meaningless. As I said, you don't have to agree with him(and obviously you don't) but at least put up some sort of reasonable argument as to why not? Here is some data for your conscious mind to absorb, Alan. Open your mind to other possibilities at least,  instead of rejecting them out of hand.   

[torridon]

No
You just need instinctive reactions to sensory data.
Awareness is not defined by reactions.Learnt behaviour does not require awareness.
The learning process can be programmed in to the instinctive behaviour, as can be demonstrated in computerised chess players which learn from past games.
You cannot presume to know that animals have the same sense of awareness as humans.  You can't see inside the mind of an animal.

You are really baffling. I've only just explained that awareness is not defined by its subsequent reactions.  And I've only just explained that learned behaviours are not the same as instinctive behaviours; they have to be learned, they are not 'preprogrammed'.  And yet here you are once again spouting the same ignorant nonsense exactly as if you have not understood a word.

Of course learning requires awareness.  Have you ever seen anybody reading a book while they were asleep ?  How would a monkey swing through the branches if it were not aware of where the branches were ?  All organisms need some or other degree and quality of awareness to survive. If you are a potato plant, your needs are simple so you do not have complex behaviours.  If you are a heliotropic flower turning to track the sun during the day, we could say it has a primitive form of awareness, it is aware of the position of the sun. If you are a bee, you need to be aware of the other bees in the hive; the success or failure of the colony depends on the interactions between the bees.   All organisms need some degree of awareness in order to survive.  It's baffling that you cannot understand this.  How could any organism survive if it were unaware of the things it needs to be aware of in order to survive ?

[torridon]

What is impossible in your scenario is for me to have any personal control of past events, which would completely remove any personal input to what I post.  Your flawed scenario makes it a logical impossibility for me to personally compose anything.

That makes no sense.  You don't need to control the past in order to compose a personal response.  We all respond in our own unique way

[Enki]

We are self-aware, and capable of altering our environment and making progress. We have a spiritual capacity. Other asnimals don't and aren't. (I did say "not necessarily.)

Some animals seem to be self aware, some animals are capable of altering our environment, some animals make progress, some animals seem to have have at least the beginnings of a spiritual capacity(in the vaguest sense of the word) as does at least one extinct species. The difference between other animals and homo sapiens in these regards seems to be the result of complex brain, unless,  of course, you can point to something else.

[ippy]

AB,

Scientifically illiterate bollocks rounded off with incoherent theobabble.

Yet another reason to stand back and look almost in awe at how mind numbly powerful and successful indoctrination really is with some victims.

Allan, unfortunately seems to be suffering from a similar condition that can be compared to that poor scientist Francis Collins who is otherwise obviously a highly intelligent person and he also suffers a very similar malady to Alan.

I think Alan is able to see the circularity of his mostly assertive case but is unable to even question these firmly held beliefs for various reasons, maybe because it would amount to him having to reject some many years of his social involvement following and pursuing his questionable beliefs, a feeling of of not being able to abandon his old friends. 

Regards, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

You are really baffling. I've only just explained that awareness is not defined by its subsequent reactions.  And I've only just explained that learned behaviours are not the same as instinctive behaviours; they have to be learned, they are not 'preprogrammed'.  And yet here you are once again spouting the same ignorant nonsense exactly as if you have not understood a word.

Of course learning requires awareness.  Have you ever seen anybody reading a book while they were asleep ?  How would a monkey swing through the branches if it were not aware of where the branches were ?  All organisms need some or other degree and quality of awareness to survive. If you are a potato plant, your needs are simple so you do not have complex behaviours.  If you are a heliotropic flower turning to track the sun during the day, we could say it has a primitive form of awareness, it is aware of the position of the sun. If you are a bee, you need to be aware of the other bees in the hive; the success or failure of the colony depends on the interactions between the bees.   All organisms need some degree of awareness in order to survive.  It's baffling that you cannot understand this.  How could any organism survive if it were unaware of the things it needs to be aware of in order to survive ?

I agree that learnt behaviour itself cannot be pre programmed.  It is the process of learning which can be built in to instinctive behaviour.  The learning process can be fed with sensory data without the need for conscious awareness.  But this is all moving away from the conscious freedom we all enjoy as human beings.

I honestly do not see any point in trying to use observed animal behaviour to contradict the reality of our conscious freedom.  You need to look within yourself to discover the true reality and potential of our gift of human free will. If you can discover such conscious freedom to control one's thoughts, words and actions in another species it will be further evidence of God's miraculous gift, because such freedom cannot exist in the predetermined world of physically controlled material reactions..

[Alan Burns]

Assertion. A misunderstanding of objective. An empty use of a term 'consciously'. And all based on an illogical premise. Shite cubed

And where do you suppose the unique phrase "shite cubed" originates?  Can you take personal credit for dreaming up this unusual descriptor?  Or did it just pop up into your conscious awareness after being concocted by the uncontrollable reactions occurring in your sub conscious brain activity?

[Sebastian Toe]

And where do you suppose the unique phrase "shite cubed" originates?  Can you take personal credit for dreaming up this unusual descriptor?  Or did it just pop up into your conscious awareness after being concocted by the uncontrollable reactions occurring in your sub conscious brain activity?

It was concocted from within a biological brain, following deterministic principles.
No soul required.

[Alan Burns]

That makes no sense.  You don't need to control the past in order to compose a personal response.  We all respond in our own unique way

But as I have been informed many times, every event is an inevitable consequence of previous events.  If this is the case, there can be no personal input to whatever is determined from the events of the past.  Any response would be just an inevitable consequence of all past events with no room for any personal intervention.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

We are self-aware,…

Depending on how you define self-awareness, so are orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bottlenose dolphins, elephants, orcas and bonobos. We can’t ask these animals how they feel about themselves, but experiments like the mirror test (in which the subject marked with a dot and given a mirror will turn to look at the dot or will try to remove it, which indicates that it knows it’s looking at its own image rather than at another animal) are good indicators of self-awareness.   

…and capable of altering our environment…

Lots of animals can do that – beavers blocking rivers with dams for example.

…and making progress.

Depends what you mean by “making progress”. Again though, when for example a crow learns to drop nuts at traffic lights and then when the red light stops the traffic to collect the nuts that cars have crushed other crows will copy that behaviour. That seems like a pretty good definition of “progress” to me given how difficult it was for them to crack nuts by other means before they developed that technique. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007xvww) 

We have a spiritual capacity. Other asnimals don't and aren't. (I did say "not necessarily.)

But that’s the fallacy of begging the question. If you want to claim something called a “spiritual capacity” then you have all of your work ahead of you first to tell us what it means, and then to demonstrate its existence at all. For what it’s worth, my experience of people who claim to be “spiritual” is that they generally rely on Christmas cracker aphorisms ( “everything happens for a reason” etc) in the hope that others will think them to be more profound than they actually are. Perhaps you have a more robust definition of it though?

[Roses]

Apparently it has been discovered that whales and dolphins have large brains and are very intelligent creatures.

[torridon]

The learning process can be fed with sensory data without the need for conscious awareness. 

That might describe how a self-driving car learns.  But it doesn't describe how living creatures learn.  Conscious awareness is indispensible to learning, we cannot learn whilst unconscious.  If you can understand that, then we can move onto more interesting things, like how choices are made.