Causes and mechanisms

[Gordon]

I am not just presuming that conscious perception can't be defined by physical reactions alone.

Excellent - so we can chuck 'souls' in the bin, where the idea belongs. Maybe you should try less hard to 'define' things.

I am postulating the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to perceive themselves.

Which is an argument that mixes your trademark incredulity along with ignorance.

Conscious perception necessitates awareness of material reactions and properties.

Lucky then we have biology that can do that sort of thing.

The question is this - How can a set of material reactions represent a conscious perception of other material reactions?

Different bits of biological materials in your head have different functions, and then they interact - bingo!

What is capable of perception in an entirely material environment?

That would have to be material, silly.

[Alan Burns]

Excellent - so we can chuck 'souls' in the bin, where the idea belongs. Maybe you should try less hard to 'define' things.

Which is an argument that mixes your trademark incredulity along with ignorance.

Lucky then we have biology that can do that sort of thing.

Different bits of biological materials in your head have different functions, and then they interact - bingo!

That would have to be material, silly.

So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.

[Gordon]

So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.

You're being silly and fallacious again, Alan.
 

[Nearly Sane]

So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.

  As opposed to made up shite

[Stranger]

So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.

And it's still better at explaining it than your claims of self-contradictory magic and meaningless gibberish.

I am not just presuming that conscious perception can't be defined by physical reactions alone.
I am postulating the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to perceive themselves.

This looks like you're turning an argument from ignorance into an argument from personal incredulity. Out of one fallacy and straight into another.

These are recognised basic mistakes in reasoning, Alan. Why don't you even seem to care?

[torridon]

So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.

We don't understand everything, that is why we do science, to figure things out. If we all regressed back into magical thinking at every challenge we'd still be living in caves and wearing goat skins. Be glad that some people rise to the challenge even if you cannot or will not.

[Enki]

So in effect all you have is the label "biology" which explains nothing about how conscious perception can possibly be generated by material reactions alone.
Biology can explain how our physical bodily functions work, but when it comes to conscious perception the word is effectively meaningless.

Actually quite a lot of work has been done which points clearly to the conclusion that consciousness emanates from the biological brain.

E.G. https://www.mpg.de/5839948/conscious_perception

And what have you got to offer? Your own meanderings on the subject, with lots of talk on 'souls' and assertions of the impossibility of conscious awareness being a physical process of the brain, and all without a jot of evidence to back up any of your assertions at all, whilst completely and conveniently ignoring the evidence from the hard work which has been done by others.

And then you get on your little soapbox to criticise others because they have not yet achieved a complete answer! I seem to get the smell of parochial hypocrisy here.

[Outrider]

I am not just presuming that conscious perception can't be defined by physical reactions alone.  I am postulating the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to perceive themselves.

You can postulate, but unless you support it with anything then it's just spitballing.

Conscious perception necessitates awareness of material reactions and properties.

Conscious perception requires perception of a conscious variety - well colour me convinced!

The question is this - How can a set of material reactions represent a conscious perception of other material reactions?

That's an interesting question, certainly.  More important, whilst you wait for an answer - because currently we don't know - is why would you think there was anything else?

What is capable of perception in an entirely material environment?

People, at least, it seems.  Unless you've evidence of something non-material?

O.