Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 22, 2024, 11:34 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
My aunt is blind. She has been legally blind since she was in college and it's progressed through her 80+ years.

About the only thing I know she can't do is drive. But if you need directions to somewhere it was always she that gave them and not her sighted husband, even to places she didn't go to when still sighted or slightly so.

We all have limits and we all have ways of working around some of those limits.
[Image: MmQV79M.png]  
                                      
Reply
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
Quote:We can perform some really really complex tasks like catching an object or avoiding obstacles without qualia. It seems that other complex tasks don't require qualia either.
None of this follows or was demonstrated
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
Reply
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
we can catch a ball without involving the conscious self.   however we can’t look at the expression and body language of a fellow human being to deduce his/her emotional state and account for it in our social interactions using blind sight.    the advantage of social astuteness in a social organism needs no explanation,  of if it does, then perhaps you are missing a qualia or two.  and we shall not count on yours being amongst the fitter genes for survival amongst your population.
Reply
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
(January 20, 2023 at 1:45 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You know I'm comfortable positing that it doesn't.  

Nevertheless, there's a strong correlation between visual experience and performance in human beings.  People with blindsight are still profoundly disabled.  You wont find many blindsighted outfielders.

It's been a while since I last read about blindsight, but the impression I always got was that the main debilitating factor about it was the lack of trust or confidence in the perception (if you can call it that). Ie normally we have these multiple channels, as it were, of consciousness integrating with and reinforcing each other, giving confidence in what we're perceiving, such as the position of an object. But in the case of blindsight where that sense, again, if you can call it that, doesn't integrate with any of the others, it's understandable there would be a feeling of lack of justification or confidence. Basically I guess what I'm saying is, the ability itself may (or may not) be solid, but without confidence in the perceptions, that seems to be where the real disability lies.
Reply
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
(January 20, 2023 at 7:32 pm)emjay Wrote:
(January 20, 2023 at 1:45 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You know I'm comfortable positing that it doesn't.  

Nevertheless, there's a strong correlation between visual experience and performance in human beings.  People with blindsight are still profoundly disabled.  You wont find many blindsighted outfielders.

It's been a while since I last read about blindsight, but the impression I always got was that the main debilitating factor about it was the lack of trust or confidence in the perception (if you can call it that). Ie normally we have these multiple channels, as it were, of consciousness integrating with and reinforcing each other, giving confidence in what we're perceiving, such as the position of an object. But in the case of blindsight where that sense, again, if you can call it that, doesn't integrate with any of the others, it's understandable there would be a feeling of lack of justification or confidence. Basically I guess what I'm saying is, the ability itself may (or may not) be solid, but without confidence in the perceptions, that seems to be where the real disability lies.

Hey emjay, interesting take. When you say "channels of consciousness", you don't mean consciousness itself in various modes (or whatever), but the underlying neurons/neural processes?

That can work for epiphenomenalism, actually.

Going back to the various recent posts (I've missed a lot since my last response), I see there's some conflation going on between perception and [phenomenal] experience, and therefore people from different sides are talking past one other. In the case of vision, visual perception is the interpretative output made by the relevant regions of the brain (and the CNS in general) as a result of processing the electrochemical "data" sent in through the optic nerve, and it is entirely reducible to the activities happening in the CNS (and the rest of the body). Visual experience is the extra layer that goes beyond perception and is observed intimately, privately, subjectively from a first-person perspective (by someone/something that feels like "you") and in which details of perception are vividly expressed in the form of colors, shapes, and such. This is the part that we are unable, as of yet, conceive of how to reduce to activities in the CNS. And more relevant to the current discussion, why we need such a thing at all, if the underlying neural correlates seem to suffice.
Reply
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
(January 20, 2023 at 8:43 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:
(January 20, 2023 at 3:03 am)Astreja Wrote: We can perform some tasks. 

We can perform some really really complex tasks like catching an object or avoiding obstacles without qualia. It seems that other complex tasks don't require qualia either.

How do you know that it's "without qualia"?  A lot of things happen in the brain below the level of conscious awareness, but I think it's extremely likely that there is multi-channel sensory data being processed constantly.  When I walk into a dark room, open a drawer and take out a specific object, I'm calling upon multiple streams of information - some of which have been rendered automatic by repetition and familiarity.
Reply
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
(January 20, 2023 at 10:45 pm)GrandizerII Wrote:
(January 20, 2023 at 7:32 pm)emjay Wrote: It's been a while since I last read about blindsight, but the impression I always got was that the main debilitating factor about it was the lack of trust or confidence in the perception (if you can call it that). Ie normally we have these multiple channels, as it were, of consciousness integrating with and reinforcing each other, giving confidence in what we're perceiving, such as the position of an object. But in the case of blindsight where that sense, again, if you can call it that, doesn't integrate with any of the others, it's understandable there would be a feeling of lack of justification or confidence. Basically I guess what I'm saying is, the ability itself may (or may not) be solid, but without confidence in the perceptions, that seems to be where the real disability lies.

Hey emjay, interesting take. When you say "channels of consciousness", you don't mean consciousness itself in various modes (or whatever), but the underlying neurons/neural processes?

That can work for epiphenomenalism, actually.

Going back to the various recent posts (I've missed a lot since my last response), I see there's some conflation going on between perception and [phenomenal] experience, and therefore people from different sides are talking past one other. In the case of vision, visual perception is the interpretative output made by the relevant regions of the brain (and the CNS in general) as a result of processing the electrochemical "data" sent in through the optic nerve, and it is entirely reducible to the activities happening in the CNS (and the rest of the body). Visual experience is the extra layer that goes beyond perception and is observed intimately, privately, subjectively from a first-person perspective (by someone/something that feels like "you") and in which details of perception are vividly expressed in the form of colors, shapes, and such. This is the part that we are unable, as of yet, conceive of how to reduce to activities in the CNS. And more relevant to the current discussion, why we need such a thing at all, if the underlying neural correlates seem to suffice.

Hey there Smile By 'channels' I simply meant, in your terminology, conscious experience... sight, sound etc at the highest level, and then kind of sub levels within each, such as say colour, or depth perception in vision. Though I'm sure what I was saying would apply equally to the underlying neural mechanisms, whatever they may be. The point being that in conscious experience, those channels... those components of consciousness feel integrated and reinforce each other.. and the more reinforced they are the more confidence you have in what these different channels of feedback are telling you. For instance if a ball was coming at you you might have, at the most basic, visual feedback combined with audio feedback, both telling you that it's say coming from the right hand side. If those two channels of feedback did not agree... ie there was some error in their integration... eg if your vision told you that it was coming from the right but your hearing suggested it was coming from the left, you'd understandably be confused and lack confidence in your perceptions. As an extension of that thinking, blindsight then is an experience that seems to lack any kind of reinforcing feedback, and thus I would think would be similar.

Thanks for the clarification on the differences between perception and experience. I used to be very interested in neuroscience etc, but not so much any more, so I'm pretty out of the loop these days... if I was ever in it; tbh I fear there was perhaps a bit of Dunning Kruger going on back then. Suffice to say I lack the confidence in it I used to have, and likewise for related philosophical questions or stances like epiphenomenalism; I really don't have a position on that any more... I just don't know.
Reply
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
i think the use of the word “channel” brings in colloquial meaning that is not necessarily appropriate. i think it is more reasonable to envision several parts of the brain that can all process visual signals and generate decisions and commands. not all of these necessarily communicate with the part of the brain which are responsible for subjective perception. The reason why the brain is wired this way is precisely because it was not designed, but evolved by taking advantage of opportunities afforded by mutation that frequently act by replicating genes and thus make available to the brain excess process mechanisms that is already partially adapted for previously existing functionality but which remain flexible enough to alter these pre-existing adaption to serve other needs.
Reply
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
I can’t help but wonder if some of the studies of blindsight were concocted by sick fucks who just wanted to throw stuff at blind people.

Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Reply
RE: The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.
(January 21, 2023 at 2:00 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: i think the use of the word “channel” brings in colloquial meaning that is not necessarily appropriate.  i think it is more reasonable to envision several parts of the brain that can all process visual signals and generate decisions and commands.  not all of these necessarily communicate with the part of the brain which are responsible for subjective perception.    The reason why the brain is wired this way is precisely because it was not designed, but evolved by taking advantage of opportunities afforded by mutation that frequently act by replicating genes and thus make available to the brain excess process mechanisms that is already partially adapted for previously existing functionality but which remain flexible enough to alter these pre-existing adaption to serve other needs.

Excellent post... that makes a lot of sense. And yeah I agree 'channel' was a poor choice of words and a bad analogy... better now I think would be an anology of layers, like layers in a paint program (if you're familiar with that function; you work on different parts of the image in different layers, say the background in one layer and the foreground in another, and can toggle each individual layer's visibility on and off... it's a cool feature) or layers of transparent projector film on top of each other... in that analogy the overall image (with 'image' here as a stand in for the whole of conscious experience) appears the same and complete at a superficial level, but that seeming integration - that leads to richer and richer detail as it were in the image - is more like independent overlays on top of each other; remove any layer and you'd notice it's loss in consciousness - probably taking it for granted beforehand, as much literature on brain damage seems to suggest -  but together they appear to be a rich and integrated whole. That analogy would fit in well with what you're saying about the evolutionary side as well, I think.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God JohnJubinsky 28 3460 June 14, 2021 at 12:13 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  scripture says we atheists believe in god android17ak47 17 3834 October 21, 2018 at 8:17 am
Last Post: Fireball
  If the Bible is false, why are its prophecies coming true? pgardner2358 3 1870 June 9, 2018 at 6:08 pm
Last Post: Jackalope
  Near death experiences are not biblical and the bible itself debunks them (Proof) LetThereBeNoGod 0 1218 February 16, 2017 at 4:10 pm
Last Post: LetThereBeNoGod
  Jesus, a False Saviour? rolandsanjaya 17 3988 April 11, 2016 at 4:20 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Biblical Archaeology 1994Californication 13 3525 January 8, 2016 at 2:20 pm
Last Post: brewer
  When Atheists Can't Think Episode 2: Proving Atheism False Heat 18 3836 December 22, 2015 at 12:42 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  God is Dead Rant ManMadeGod 5 2041 December 14, 2015 at 3:30 pm
Last Post: ManMadeGod
  False equivalency Heat 51 7305 December 1, 2015 at 11:21 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Is the Atheism/Theism belief/disbelief a false dichotomy? are there other options? Psychonaut 69 16981 October 5, 2015 at 1:06 pm
Last Post: houseofcantor



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)