Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

No.
It is a consequence of how I choose to respond to what I consciously perceive.

And how to choose to respond must be due to a reason, unless you are some sort of random response generator.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My ability to assert anything aptly demonstrates that I have the conscious freedom to make the assertion.

Except of course you’ve had explained to you about a bajillion times that it doesn’t do that at all. Not even close. This is essentially tautological – you’re asked actually to demonstrate the claim you keep asserting to be demonstrable, and instead to just say “it’s demonstrable” again using slightly different language.     

Yet again: “My ability to assert anything aptly demonstrates that I have the conscious freedom to make the assertion” describes only what the experience feels like. What you’re being asked to demonstrate though isn’t what it feels like – what you’re being asked to demonstrate is why this experiential feeling must also therefore be the explanation for the phenomenon you’re describing. You know, the bit you always miss out.

PS Any news yet on your previous assertion that a computer could never have the experience of "free" will that you have? 

[Alan Burns]

PS Any news yet on your previous assertion that a computer could never have the experience of "free" will that you have?

Actually I said that a computer could never experience the self awareness we have, because a single entity of self awareness is impossible to define within material reactions.  Complex sets of material reactions can only produce more reactions.  Our conscious awareness involves perception of reactions - not the reactions themselves.

Our conscious awareness is all we have, all we exist in.  It is ours to use - a gift from God.  We are free to use it as we wish.

[torridon]

Actually I said that a computer could never experience the self awareness we have, because a single entity of self awareness is impossible to define within material reactions.  Complex sets of material reactions can only produce more reactions.  Our conscious awareness involves perception of reactions - not the reactions themselves.

Our conscious awareness is all we have, all we exist in.  It is ours to use - a gift from God.  We are free to use it as we wish.

Whats this, argument by repetition and bolding ?  Bolding is no substitute for evidence and reason.  Despite many, many requests you've never been able to justify these assertions, so until you do, we can safely ignore them, bolded or not. 

There is no reason that I know to imagine that artificial consciousness is impossible in principle.  Evolution managed just fine through natural selection - clearly a conscious animal is at an advantage over an unconscious rival. Humans are always learning from how nature achieved things and replicating them with better materials.  So, just because we haven't achieved in a couple of decades what took 3 billion years of evolution you think it time to throw in the towel ?  Not everyone is so lacking in imagination and determination.  It might not come within our lifetimes, but it may well be achieved on longer timescales.

[Stranger]

Actually I said that a computer could never experience the self awareness we have, because a single entity of self awareness is impossible to define within material reactions.  Complex sets of material reactions can only produce more reactions.  Our conscious awareness involves perception of reactions - not the reactions themselves.

Our conscious awareness is all we have, all we exist in.  It is ours to use - a gift from God.  We are free to use it as we wish.

Just another string of utterly baseless assertions.

Where is your logical argument?

[ekim]

Our conscious awareness is all we have, all we exist in.  It is ours to use - a gift from God.  We are free to use it as we wish.

... which means that it is attached to a wish or desire rather than free from it.

[Outrider]

Actually I said that a computer could never experience the self awareness we have, because a single entity of self awareness is impossible to define within material reactions.

Technically you asserted it, because you've done nothing to justify the opinion.

Complex sets of material reactions can only produce more reactions.

Right.  So all you need to do, then, is demonstrate that consciousness is necessarily something more than physical reactions. (Note: 'demonstrate', not 'assert', not 'really strongly believe'...)

Our conscious awareness involves perception of reactions - not the reactions themselves.

And yet perception is, obviously, a reaction.

Our conscious awareness is all we have, all we exist in.  It is ours to use - a gift from God.  We are free to use it as we wish.

It might be 'all' you have; I have a marvellous, involved, almost infinitely complicated universe to explore from within my consciousness, and I don't see any gods in there to thank for it.

O.

[ekim]

It might be 'all' you have; I have a marvellous, involved, almost infinitely complicated universe to explore from within my consciousness, and I don't see any gods in there to thank for it.

O.

Ah, now we are back to the title of this thread.  It's in the Book ..... 'The Kingdom of Heaven is within you' and 'Our Father (God) is in Heaven'  'Unless you attain the simplicity of a child again etc....'

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Actually I said that a computer could never experience the self awareness we have, because a single entity of self awareness is impossible to define within material reactions.

Yes, that is your assertion. It’s incoherent though – whether or not we can “define” something tells us nothing about whether we observe it actually happening. Lots of things have been observed in nature that we haven’t been able to “define”. What happens next though is that people called scientists work and work and work and work until they do “define” (ie, understand) them. In principle there’s no reason to think that a “single entity of self awareness” couldn’t be, regardless of whether it evolved or was manufactured. The clue is in the word “self”.   

Complex sets of material reactions can only produce more reactions.  Our conscious awareness involves perception of reactions - not the reactions themselves.

And yet you never seem to be able to explain why the experience of perception isn’t actually a very complex set of “reactions” as the evidence suggests.

Our conscious awareness is all we have, all we exist in.  It is ours to use - a gift from God.  We are free to use it as we wish.

Oh for goodness’ sake AB – why didn’t you just do that in the first place? Of course now I see it in bold and in a large font it’s obvious that you don’t need reason or logic at all to demonstrate how right you are. Genius! 

[Outrider]

'Unless you attain the simplicity of a child again etc....'

So if I lack insight or wisdom, and approach claims uncritically then I'll accept the claims? Hmm... there might be a flaw in that, somewhere...

O.

[Alan Burns]

And yet perception is, obviously, a reaction.

No it is not.
Perception requires interpretation of a reaction to produce some form of meaning.
A reaction on its own has no meaning.  It can induce other reactions, but they too will have no meaning.
How reactions can be interpreted into meaning is still a mystery in material science.
There are many reactions going on inside your brain, but what is it that perceives these reactions and interprets them into a conscious awareness of meaning?  Observance of physical brain activity shows many reactions going on, but at no point in these chains of physical reactions can there be anything other than more induced reactions.  The end result is just another reaction - not perception.

[Stranger]

No it is not.
Perception requires interpretation of a reaction to produce some form of meaning.
A reaction on its own has no meaning.  It can induce other reactions, but they too will have no meaning.

Baseless assertion.

How reactions can be interpreted into meaning is still a mystery in material science.

Which doesn't make self-contradictory nonsense and meaningless gibberish any more believable.

There are many reactions going on inside your brain, but what is it that perceives these reactions and interprets them into a conscious awareness of meaning?

I can say with confidence that it isn't something that is self-contradictory and therefore logically impossible.

Observance of physical brain activity shows many reactions going on, but at no point in these chains of physical reactions can there be anything other than more induced reactions.  The end result is just another reaction - not perception.

Perception is a reaction.

Where is the logical argument you said you had? Will you finally have the honesty to admit you cannot provide one?

[torridon]

No it is not.
Perception requires interpretation of a reaction to produce some form of meaning.
A reaction on its own has no meaning.  It can induce other reactions, but they too will have no meaning.
How reactions can be interpreted into meaning is still a mystery in material science.
There are many reactions going on inside your brain, but what is it that perceives these reactions and interprets them into a conscious awareness of meaning?  Observance of physical brain activity shows many reactions going on, but at no point in these chains of physical reactions can there be anything other than more induced reactions.  The end result is just another reaction - not perception.

You don't need another system of perception to perceive what your system of perception gathers Alan, that would be total infinite-regress bonkers. Perceptual systems evolved in vertebrates hundreds of millions of years ago and is now ubiquitous through the animal kingdom.  You are really way way behind the curve on this, and you have no excuse since this has been pointed out to you on many occasions before. You don't need another system of perception in order to perceive your perception.

[Gordon]

No it is not.
Perception requires interpretation of a reaction to produce some form of meaning.
A reaction on its own has no meaning.  It can induce other reactions, but they too will have no meaning.
How reactions can be interpreted into meaning is still a mystery in material science.
There are many reactions going on inside your brain, but what is it that perceives these reactions and interprets them into a conscious awareness of meaning?  Observance of physical brain activity shows many reactions going on, but at no point in these chains of physical reactions can there be anything other than more induced reactions.  The end result is just another reaction - not perception.

You're being silly again, Alan.

You're trying to manufacture an artificial separation between, say, a reaction to a visual perception and any subsequent intellectual reaction, in the form of mental processing, about this visual perception.

So, assuming you were correct, you're in effect saying that we have to deliberately prompt ourselves to start thinking about what we'd just perceived visually and that if we forgot to do that then we wouldn't intellectually start to process what the visual stimuli might mean. For instance, if we saw a flashing blue light in our rear-view mirror we'd have no understanding of what that light might mean until we consciously decided to think about it - and that is nonsense. Next time to see something of note when driving try deciding not to think about it (which is, of course, thinking about not thinking about it) until you consciously decide to start thinking about it and let us know how you get on.

Whether you like it or not, Alan, the intellectual consideration of incoming stimuli is just a reactive biological process: just as well too, since not remembering to start to think about why a police car with it's blue light flashing might be interested in us  does soon like a recipe for problems. 

[Outrider]

No it is not.

Perception is a result of the existence of something being perceived - without the thing to be perceived, and the process of perceiving it, there is no perception.

Perception requires interpretation of a reaction to produce some form of meaning.

Interpretation requires a language, and a background understanding of concepts into which the perceived thing can be inserted to give it meaning - it is a result of those things, too, that's why individual perceptions differ.

A reaction on its own has no meaning.

Except when the reaction is, say, understanding.

It can induce other reactions, but they too will have no meaning.

Why?

How reactions can be interpreted into meaning is still a mystery in material science.

And therefore magic?  The lack of every detail in the explanation doesn't mean that your hocus-pocus explanation - WHICH LACKS ANY EVIDENTIARY BASIS OR LOGICAL EXPLANATION - is therefore valid, it just means science isn't finished yet.

There are many reactions going on inside your brain, but what is it that perceives these reactions and interprets them into a conscious awareness of meaning?

Those reactions ARE the perception and the reaction and the interpretation. 'We' are those patterns of neural activity.

Observance of physical brain activity shows many reactions going on, but at no point in these chains of physical reactions can there be anything other than more induced reactions.

Which isn't a problem.

The end result is just another reaction - not perception.

Why is perception not another reaction?

O.

[ekim]

So if I lack insight or wisdom, and approach claims uncritically then I'll accept the claims? Hmm... there might be a flaw in that, somewhere...

O.

The way I would read it is that insight as opposed to out-sight, and wisdom, in the sense of inner vision, is what is being called for to discover a 'heaven state of being' within.  I suspect that the 'childlike simplicity' analogy was used to represent a joyful pre ego/self centred state.  The critical faculty is one of the difficult things to suspend, even temporarily, as it can impinge upon fear for safety.  It's probably why a leap of faith is suggested.  However, as there is always a danger of being manipulated and controlled by the unscrupulous, blind faith is not a wise option.

[Alan Burns]

Except when the reaction is, say, understanding.

So how do you get from a physical reaction of material elements to understanding?
How can any set of physical reactions produce any form of meaning within those reactions?
How can complex reactions produce any other output apart from more reactions?
Can "understanding" be defined by physical reactions alone?
It is easy to observe the programmed, instinctive reactions in animals - but this outside observation can't be used as an indication that these animals experience inner understanding of what they are reacting to.
We take so much for granted in our human abilities, and in particular our ability to consciously perceive meaning from the data produced by our sensory organs - as opposed to just reacting to the data.
In scientific terms, we are far, far, away from being able to say that perception is just a reaction.

[Gordon]

So how do you get from a physical reaction of material elements to understanding?
How can any set of physical reactions produce any form of meaning within those reactions?
How can complex reactions produce any other output apart from more reactions?
Can "understanding" be defined by physical reactions alone?
It is easy to observe the programmed, instinctive reactions in animals - but this outside observation can't be used as an indication that these animals experience inner understanding of what they are reacting to.
We take so much for granted in our human abilities, and in particular our ability to consciously perceive meaning from the data produced by our sensory organs - as opposed to just reacting to the data.
In scientific terms, we are far, far, away from being able to say that perception is just a reaction.

You seem especially vulnerable to the fallacy of composition these days - and here we have another example.

[Stranger]

So how do you get from a physical reaction of material elements to understanding?
How can any set of physical reactions produce any form of meaning within those reactions?
How can complex reactions produce any other output apart from more reactions?
Can "understanding" be defined by physical reactions alone?
It is easy to observe the programmed, instinctive reactions in animals - but this outside observation can't be used as an indication that these animals experience inner understanding of what they are reacting to.
We take so much for granted in our human abilities, and in particular our ability to consciously perceive meaning from the data produced by our sensory organs - as opposed to just reacting to the data.
In scientific terms, we are far, far, away from being able to say that perception is just a reaction.

Yes Alan, we do understand that you have shedloads of personal incredulity but it counts for nothing when compared to the self-contradictory, logical impossibility that you are proposing. Difficult to understand how it could be like that is far, far, far more believable than inherently impossible, baseless nonsense with a side helping of meaningless gibberish.

Where is the logical argument you claimed to have?

Why do you not have the basic human honesty to admit you can't produce one?

[torridon]

So how do you get from a physical reaction of material elements to understanding?
How can any set of physical reactions produce any form of meaning within those reactions?
How can complex reactions produce any other output apart from more reactions?
Can "understanding" be defined by physical reactions alone?
It is easy to observe the programmed, instinctive reactions in animals - but this outside observation can't be used as an indication that these animals experience inner understanding of what they are reacting to.
..

Every creature and indeed every individual will understand to the degree of its own cognitive abilities. A mathematician might understand Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but a two year old toddler won't. An adult chimp might understand how to fashion a twig into a tool to probe for termites with but he won't have an understanding of how termites fit into the broader evolutionary tree of life. Every creature has perception and cognition according to the evolutionary niche it occupies, were that not the case, they would have long gone extinct.

[Alan Burns]

Every creature and indeed every individual will understand to the degree of its own cognitive abilities. A mathematician might understand Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but a two year old toddler won't. An adult chimp might understand how to fashion a twig into a tool to probe for termites with but he won't have an understanding of how termites fit into the broader evolutionary tree of life. Every creature has perception and cognition according to the evolutionary niche it occupies, were that not the case, they would have long gone extinct.

Outward observation of instinctive animal behaviour in not indicative of conscious inner perception.  Using the logic constantly put forward by Stranger, conscious perception is irrelevant to the inevitable reactions produced from sensory data.  What I  endeavour to illustrate is the unique human ability, facilitated by our conscious perception, to choose how to respond to what we consciously perceive, rather than just react.

[Stranger]

Using the logic constantly put forward by Stranger, conscious perception is irrelevant to the inevitable reactions produced from sensory data.

Are you not paying attention or was this a deliberate lie?

Just to be clear: I have never once said that conscious perception is irrelevant to the way people react - quite the oposite. I said it was irrelevant to the contradiction inherent in your nonsensical view of "freedom".

Please pay some attention to what is actually said or stop lying, whichever is applicable.

[torridon]

Outward observation of instinctive animal behaviour in not indicative of conscious inner perception. 
..

Of course it is indicative, that is the point of expression. A dog raises his hackles and bares his teeth growling, that is an indication you are going to get bit if you don't back off. It's indicative of his inner mind state; we all do these things, all creatures communicate by such means, we express our inner state through outward behaviours, there would be no point in such things if they weren't indicative, if they weren't a faithful expression of what is going on inside.

[torridon]

Using the logic constantly put forward by Stranger, conscious perception is irrelevant to the inevitable reactions produced from sensory data.

That's just misrepresentation.  Stranger has pointed our many times that consciousness is no justification for your absurd claims that things can be simultaneously deterministic and non-deterministic.  That is just a logic paradox of your own making, and only reworking your logic can get you out, consciousness is neither here nor there in that regard.

[torridon]

What I  endeavour to illustrate is the unique human ability, facilitated by our conscious perception, to choose how to respond to what we consciously perceive, rather than just react.

yes, humans are probably better at abstraction than other creatures, so our responses can be more nuanced.  That doesn't mean that other creatures' responses aren't nuanced at all. In many ways human cognitive abilities outstrip other species, but not in all ways. Humans are the brainy upright tool using neotenous wild child of the primate family.  That is our niche and our brains and bodies are evolved into that niche. Other species have adapted to their niche, they may be not so brainy as us, but that doesn't mean they are brain-less.