Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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".

Your take on perception would appear to be just another link in the endless cause and effect chains of reactions.  But it is much more than that - it allows us to interpret our sensory data and to contemplate meaning and purpose.  Not just inevitable reaction.

[torridon]

Your take on perception would appear to be just another link in the endless cause and effect chains of reactions.  But it is much more than that - it allows us to interpret our sensory data and to contemplate meaning and purpose.  Not just inevitable reaction.

That is a reasonable broad definition of perception - the interpretation of sensory inputs as something meaningful to the organism, and it has to be within those chains of cause and effect otherwise it would be literally meaning-less.

[Stranger]

Your take on perception would appear to be just another link in the endless cause and effect chains of reactions.

A very important part of that chain. Not at all irrelevant to how humans react and definitely not a spectator (which would be something that you could remove without changing the process).

Will you please stop misrepresenting me on this?

But it is much more than that...

Unsupported assertion.

...it allows us to interpret our sensory data and to contemplate meaning and purpose.

Yes.

Not just inevitable reaction.

Unsupported assertion.

To return to the relevance of consciousness, the reason I keep saying it's irrelevant is that it's irrelevant to the contradiction inherent in your idea of freedom, namely, that we act as deterministic systems (no randomness) and not as deterministic systems (could have done differently).

Emphasising the role consciousness (which is what you very often do in response) doesn't address the point because the contradiction isn't about how what role consciousness plays in our thought processes.

Nobody can demonstrate that they could have done differently, no matter how obviously they consciously contemplated what they did. You would have to be able to literally rewind time in order to demonstrate it (which you rightly say is impossible), and even then I can see no way to demonstrate that the difference wasn't random.

Your claims that your version of freedom is demonstrable is therefore vacuous because you seem to be confusing consciousness with your contradictory version of freedom. If you think there is a logical link between the two, then you need to make the argument.

[Alan Burns]

That is a reasonable broad definition of perception - the interpretation of sensory inputs as something meaningful to the organism, and it has to be within those chains of cause and effect otherwise it would be literally meaning-less.

Chains of cause and effect alone are literally meaningless, because the end result is not a revelation of meaning or purpose, but just another cause, followed by another inevitable effect ... and so it goes on.

[torridon]

Chains of cause and effect alone are literally meaningless, because the end result is not a revelation of meaning or purpose, but just another cause, followed by another inevitable effect ... and so it goes on.

Quite the opposite, something outwith the principle of cause and effect is random; how exactly could some random event be meaningful ? Random occurrences are, by definition, incomprehensible, meaningless.  In reality, the world is not like that, we find meaning through pattern familiarity and there can be no pattern and no familiarity in a meaningless world of chaos. Perception is about pattern recognition; when a penguin recognises her chick from amongst thousands of near identical penguin chicks in the colony, that is perception in action. It is not just a case of having visual experience, it is about finding meaning in that experience, and for the penguin that consists in the recognition of her chick, reactivating emotional bonds.  Were there any significant randomness in this process, perception would fail and penguin chicks would starve to death, and likewise for pretty much all higher life on Earth, humanity included

[Gordon]

Chains of cause and effect alone are literally meaningless, because the end result is not a revelation of meaning or purpose, but just another cause, followed by another inevitable effect ... and so it goes on.

A prospect that terrifies you, Alan: yet what you fear is most likely how it is, and that maybe your personal need for 'meaning' and 'purpose' is naive and misplaced since you're indulging in a spot of reification.

[Stranger]

Chains of cause and effect alone are literally meaningless, because the end result is not a revelation of meaning or purpose...

Assertion. How do you know?

...but just another cause, followed by another inevitable effect ... and so it goes on.

So why can't an effect be "a revelation of meaning or purpose"? How can something that doesn't have a cause (reason) contribute to such a revelation? And, no, "you" or the "conscious will" being a cause is not relevant because either that has a cause or not as well.

In what way exactly would being able to have done differently help with meaning a purpose? I keep on asking questions like that and you keep on wibbling on about conscious awareness, which, for reasons I just explained yet again in #40577, does not address the point.

If it wasn't self-contradictory (which it is) what would this ability's function be? How would it help with anything humans do?

[Alan Burns]

Assertion. How do you know?

So why can't an effect be "a revelation of meaning or purpose"? How can something that doesn't have a cause (reason) contribute to such a revelation? And, no, "you" or the "conscious will" being a cause is not relevant because either that has a cause or not as well.

In what way exactly would being able to have done differently help with meaning a purpose? I keep on asking questions like that and you keep on wibbling on about conscious awareness, which, for reasons I just explained yet again in #40577, does not address the point.

If it wasn't self-contradictory (which it is) what would this ability's function be? How would it help with anything humans do?

The material reactions occurring within our brain certainly contain information.  Information can cause reaction.  This surely is the principle result of evolutionary processes which enable organisms to react to sensory information to give survival advantage.  Conscious awareness of information is not needed to produce such reactions.  We are able to design computer software to process and react to information with no need of conscious perception.  What I am pointing out is that reaction to information is not the same as conscious perception of information.  Conscious perception is not needed to produce reaction.

So in this scenario, what facilitates conscious perception?  How can material reactions alone produce an entity which is consciously aware of these reactions?  What comprises conscious awareness in material terms?  How can a single entity of conscious awareness exist and be defined by material reactions alone?  It it possible for any purely material entity to be aware of itself?  Can meaning and purpose be defined in material terms?  Can meaning and purpose exist in a purely material entity?  You may presume that we do not have answers to these questions yet - or perhaps you will come to realise the truth that you are a spiritual entity of conscious awareness with the ability to perceive and interact with this material world using the biological machinery of your material body.

[torridon]

The material reactions occurring within our brain certainly contain information.  Information can cause reaction.  This surely is the principle result of evolutionary processes which enable organisms to react to sensory information to give survival advantage.  Conscious awareness of information is not needed to produce such reactions.  We are able to design computer software to process and react to information with no need of conscious perception.  What I am pointing out is that reaction to information is not the same as conscious perception of information.  Conscious perception is not needed to produce reaction.

So in this scenario, what facilitates conscious perception?  How can material reactions alone produce an entity which is consciously aware of these reactions?  What comprises conscious awareness in material terms?  How can a single entity of conscious awareness exist and be defined by material reactions alone?  It it possible for any purely material entity to be aware of itself?  Can meaning and purpose be defined in material terms?  Can meaning and purpose exist in a purely material entity?  You may presume that we do not have answers to these questions yet - or perhaps you will come to realise the truth that you are a spiritual entity of conscious awareness with the ability to perceive and interact with this material world using the biological machinery of your material body.

If that were the case then every parrot, penguin and hedgehog presumably must have said spiritual entity living inside also, since all vertebrates share the same basic systems of perception thanks to our shared ancestry.  We humans perceive the world around us because we inherited perception.  This is biology 101, it is not advanced stuff, you really ought to be able to understand this by now.  And even if every parrot, penguin, human and hedgehog did have this spiritual thing inside it still does not make impossible things possible as you keep claiming.  Biology works in the real world, not a fantasy world. You're floundering, out of your depth, grasping at irrational baseless nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

If that were the case then every parrot, penguin and hedgehog presumably must have said spiritual entity living inside also, since all vertebrates share the same basic systems of perception thanks to our shared ancestry.  We humans perceive the world around us because we inherited perception.  This is biology 101, it is not advanced stuff, you really ought to be able to understand this by now.  And even if every parrot, penguin, human and hedgehog did have this spiritual thing inside it still does not make impossible things possible as you keep claiming.  Biology works in the real world, not a fantasy world. You're floundering, out of your depth, grasping at irrational baseless nonsense.

We do not detect conscious perception within biology.
All we can detect is reaction to sensory data.
And as I have pointed out numerous times, physical reaction alone does not constitute conscious perception.
How can you claim to know what the conscious mind of a hedgehog or parrot perceives just by observance of external reactions to sensory data? Or indeed that it actually has a conscious mind?  Can you not perceive the profound difference between conscious perception and instinctive reaction?

[Stranger]

The material reactions occurring within our brain certainly contain information.  Information can cause reaction.  This surely is the principle result of evolutionary processes which enable organisms to react to sensory information to give survival advantage.  Conscious awareness of information is not needed to produce such reactions.  We are able to design computer software to process and react to information with no need of conscious perception.  What I am pointing out is that reaction to information is not the same as conscious perception of information.  Conscious perception is not needed to produce reaction.

So, once again, you've totally ignored the actual question, which was about the ability to have done differently, and started wibbling about conscious awareness again, just as I said you keep on doing. Did you even read the post you quoted?

Of course consciousness is not needed to produce simple reactions (as far as we know) but that doesn't mean that consciousness is not necessary for certain types of complex reactions. And your assertion that other organisms do not need or have consciousness is just that, an unsupported assertion, which goes against the actual evidence.

So in this scenario, what facilitates conscious perception?  How can material reactions alone produce an entity which is consciously aware of these reactions?  What comprises conscious awareness in material terms?  How can a single entity of conscious awareness exist and be defined by material reactions alone?  It it possible for any purely material entity to be aware of itself?  Can meaning and purpose be defined in material terms?  Can meaning and purpose exist in a purely material entity?

So, having studiously ignored all the difficult questions and the glaring contradiction in your own position, you are now, yet again, demanding a full expiation from everybody else. It wouldn't matter a jot to the logic of the situation if we had no inkling at all of how minds arise from the brain, it still wouldn't make your self-contradictory, evidence- and reasoning-free assertions any more believable.

You may presume that we do not have answers to these questions yet - or perhaps you will come to realise the truth that you are a spiritual entity of conscious awareness with the ability to perceive and interact with this material world using the biological machinery of your material body.

Where is the logic you said you had to back up this bold proclamation of truth?

You've ignored the questions I asked, you continue to ignore the contradiction in your version of "freedom", and you continue to ignore the requests to produce the logic you claimed you had (or even have the honesty to acknowledge that you can't).

Why should anybody take your nonsense seriously?

[Stranger]

And as I have pointed out asserted, without any reasoning or evidence, numerous times, physical reaction alone does not constitute conscious perception.

FIFY

[Gordon]

We do not detect conscious perception within biology.

Any detecting you do is done biologically.

All we can detect is reaction to sensory data.
And as I have pointed out numerous times, physical reaction alone does not constitute conscious perception.

You can 'point out' until the cows come home, Alan: we need some demonstrating instead of asserting before taking you seriously..

How can you claim to know what the conscious mind of a hedgehog or parrot perceives just by observance of external reactions to sensory data? Or indeed that it actually has a conscious mind?

I don't: do you? If you don't then kindly stop making spurious 'points' that you can't answer yourself.

Can you not perceive the profound difference between conscious perception and instinctive reaction?

Why does there need to be a significant difference in our species - aren't they just variations of the same thing?

[torridon]

We do not detect conscious perception within biology.
All we can detect is reaction to sensory data.
And as I have pointed out numerous times, physical reaction alone does not constitute conscious perception.
How can you claim to know what the conscious mind of a hedgehog or parrot perceives just by observance of external reactions to sensory data? Or indeed that it actually has a conscious mind?  Can you not perceive the profound difference between conscious perception and instinctive reaction?

You're being silly and you're being ignorant.   A penguin recognising its chick is a textbook example of conscious perception in action.  If this didn't happen, then penguin chicks would starve to death as their parents would be unable to recognise their chicks.  Having sophisticated multimodal awareness of immediate surroundings is essential to all creatures that move; if you are not aware of food sources, you will not be able to find food; if you are not aware of dangers, you will soon be somebody else's lunch.  This is fundamental to life on Earth and has been for hundreds of millions of years.  You cannot just redefine biological terms to mean something different just in order to splice in your personal beliefs. You really need to think this through, you aren't getting anywhere

[SusanDoris]

AB

Here is an extra piece of information for you to ignore: A guillemot can see so well that it can perceive correctly that another guillemot, so far away  that it is hardly even a dot in the sky for a human, and know that it is its mate and will rise from incubating its one egg and watch that partner get closer and closer and land directly beside it. They then spend time greeting each other. this is in spite of being crammed in amongst about twenty other pairs of guillemots.

[Alan Burns]

AB

Here is an extra piece of information for you to ignore: A guillemot can see so well that it can perceive correctly that another guillemot, so far away  that it is hardly even a dot in the sky for a human, and know that it is its mate and will rise from incubating its one egg and watch that partner get closer and closer and land directly beside it. They then spend time greeting each other. this is in spite of being crammed in amongst about twenty other pairs of guillemots.

Yes, we can observe amazing things going on within God's creation.
But none of this comes near to explaining what conscious perception is or how it works in terms of physical reactions.
We are all part of God's creation, and you can't use observation of the wonder of God's creativity to disprove God's existence.

I have illustrated the profound quantum leap which is needed to progress from instinctive, biological reaction to information to the conscious awareness of information we all experience as human beings. Conscious awareness of information is not illustrated by reaction to information - our awareness is not a reaction but perception of the information which can produce reactions.  It is the essential ingredient needed to enable our ability to choose how to react to information rather than just react to it.

[Alan Burns]

A penguin recognising its chick is a textbook example of conscious perception in action.

It illustrates a penguin's ability to react in an instinctive way to information produced by sensory data.
It does not illustrate the conscious perception of information we experience as human beings.
Nor does it come anywhere near to explaining how conscious awareness can emerge from material reactions.

[Gordon]

Yes, we can observe amazing things going on within God's creation.
But none of this comes near to explaining what conscious perception is or how it works in terms of physical reactions.
We are all part of God's creation, and you can't use observation of the wonder of God's creativity to disprove God's existence.

I have illustrated the profound quantum leap which is needed to progress from instinctive, biological reaction to information to the conscious awareness of information we all experience as human beings. Conscious awareness of information is not illustrated by reaction to information - our awareness is not a reaction but perception of the information which can produce reactions.  It is the essential ingredient needed to enable our ability to choose how to react to information rather than just react to it.

Theobollocks: you can 'point out' and 'illustrate' and 'quantum leap' as much as you like - but all you produce is theobollocks.

P.S. nobody is seeking to 'disprove God's existence', and if you haven't grasped why that is a particularly stupid comment of yours then you really need to do some homework.

[Stranger]

Yes, we can observe amazing things going on within God's creation.
But none of this comes near to explaining what conscious perception is or how it works in terms of physical reactions.

It does a lot better than self-contradictory magic.

We are all part of God's creation, and you can't use observation of the wonder of God's creativity to disprove God's existence.

Begging the question fallacy.

Why don't you care that you are employing such poor reasoning skills that there are names for your mistakes that date back millennia?

I have illustrated asserted the profound quantum leap which is needed to progress from instinctive, biological reaction to information to the conscious awareness of information we all experience as human beings.

FIFY

Conscious awareness of information is not illustrated by reaction to information - our awareness is not a reaction but perception of the information which can produce reactions.  It is the essential ingredient needed to enable our ability to choose how to react to information rather than just react to it.

Foot-stamping.

[Stranger]

Nor does it come anywhere near to explaining how conscious awareness can emerge from material reactions.

Far, far, far nearer than self-contradictory magic.

[Alan Burns]

A prospect that terrifies you, Alan: yet what you fear is most likely how it is, and that maybe your personal need for 'meaning' and 'purpose' is naive and misplaced since you're indulging in a spot of reification.

How on earth can I be terrified of the existence of "meaning and purpose"?
The existence of "meaning and purpose" is nothing to be terrified of.
I do not "need" meaning and purpose in my life - it is a reality which none of us can deny.
The fact that I have come to know God, rather than just know about God is the reality which frees me from any prospect of being terrified of anything.

[Sebastian Toe]

...........a spiritual entity of conscious awareness with the ability to perceive and interact with this material world using the biological machinery of your material body.

I've been wondering about that.

Your "soul" interacts with your material body.
It therefore must be able to read, for want of a better word, your neural patterns.
Read the visual ones and also the auditory ones and the taste and smell and touch, as well as access the memory banks, in order to make those real-time decisions.
That's the inputs.

Now, the outputs.....what is it that the soul does, on its visit from the timeless-zone, in order to trigger the physical reactions required, in real time, to make those real, physical things happen?
Given that we are physical entities in this physical space-time, we need a set of physical triggers surely, to set off those actions.........
...don't we?

[Gordon]

How on earth can I be terrified of the existence of "meaning and purpose"?
The existence of "meaning and purpose" is nothing to be terrified of.
I do not "need" meaning and purpose in my life - it is a reality which none of us can deny.
The fact that I have come to know God, rather than just know about God is the reality which frees me from any prospect of being terrified of anything.

You have it the wrong way round: I was pointing out that you are terrified of cause and effect - that there is no meaning or purpose, as you imagine there is.

[torridon]

It illustrates a penguin's ability to react in an instinctive way to information produced by sensory data.
It does not illustrate the conscious perception of information we experience as human beings.
Nor does it come anywhere near to explaining how conscious awareness can emerge from material reactions.

It might not illustrate the conscious perception of information we experience as human beings, however, it does illustrate the conscious perception of information that penguins experience.  Perception in a penguin is not going to be exactly the same as perception in humans, there are bound to be qualitative differences.  Consider bats, they are more closely related to humans than penguins, but perception in bats is going to substantively qualitatively different to perception in humans, given they navigate by echo location rather than eye sight. So what would it be like, well clearly we cannot easily answer that, but whatever it is like, clearly it works because bats are not dead and penguins are not dead.  All creatures that move need conscious perception in order to be able to move, to navigate, to identify opportunities and threats, and your idea that they don't need perception at all is just absurd and without any justification or evidence.

[Alan Burns]

It might not illustrate the conscious perception of information we experience as human beings, however, it does illustrate the conscious perception of information that penguins experience.  Perception in a penguin is not going to be exactly the same as perception in humans, there are bound to be qualitative differences.  Consider bats, they are more closely related to humans than penguins, but perception in bats is going to substantively qualitatively different to perception in humans, given they navigate by echo location rather than eye sight. So what would it be like, well clearly we cannot easily answer that, but whatever it is like, clearly it works because bats are not dead and penguins are not dead.  All creatures that move need conscious perception in order to be able to move, to navigate, to identify opportunities and threats, and your idea that they don't need perception at all is just absurd and without any justification or evidence.

You seem to be stuck in the groove of presuming that reaction to sensory data is indicative of some form of conscious perception of the data.  In evolutionary terms, automated advantageous reaction to sensory data would surely come before conscious perception of sensory data.  I remind you that the first real evidence of the existence of conscious awareness was in the cave paintings discovered in France.