Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

Yes, all the major traumas to the brain affect thinking and cognition - strokes, car accidents impacting the head, diseases, such as dementia, shooting incidents (US).  If they are very serious, you may lose consciousness, or die.  How much more evidence is required?

[Walter]

Yes but the fact that brain injuries and death can alter and stop consciousness respectively, is pretty strong evidence that consciousness is generated by the brain.
You can't even provide any evidence of that. Therefore the balance of probabilities is strongly in favour of consciousness being something the brain does.

Okay , I've been away from the board for a while and on return I notice this; there are people who are quite simply wrong and people who are right . Those that are wrong don't understand why they are wrong even when it is explained to them . They will continue to be wrong because they think they are right . There is no resolution to this situation as far as I can see on here !
Those who are right can only flex their intellect in the self satisfaction of producing good arguments so that others who are also right can nod their heads in agreement .

[jeremyp]

There is no resolution to this situation as far as I can see on here !

Yes you are right. I think the fact that your reply is number 34,301 on this thread is pretty good evidence that we don't care.

[ekim]

Yes but the fact that brain injuries and death can alter and stop consciousness respectively, is pretty strong evidence that consciousness is generated by the brain.
You can't even provide any evidence of that. Therefore the balance of probabilities is strongly in favour of consciousness being something the brain does.

Another view might be that 'consciousness' has always been in existence and evolving life forms are the result of its interaction with matter and energy and the brain is simply a sophisticated channel for it rather than a creator of it.  When the brain is damaged the passing of objective information which consciousness is aware of becomes distorted or blocked.

[Walter]

Yes you are right. I think the fact that your reply is number 34,301 on this thread is pretty good evidence that we don't care.

Me neither !

[jeremyp]

Another view might be that 'consciousness' has always been in existence and evolving life forms are the result of its interaction with matter and energy and the brain is simply a sophisticated channel for it rather than a creator of it.  When the brain is damaged the passing of objective information which consciousness is aware of becomes distorted or blocked.

How would that work then? Bear in mind that the brain operates according to the laws of physics. Does this consciousness work in such a way that its manipulation of the brain is too subtle for us to detect?

If the consciousness has always been there, why is it that, for examples, every infant has to learn to speak?

[ekim]

How would that work then? Bear in mind that the brain operates according to the laws of physics. Does this consciousness work in such a way that its manipulation of the brain is too subtle for us to detect?

If the consciousness has always been there, why is it that, for examples, every infant has to learn to speak?

If you are defining 'us' as an accumulation of our senses and their technological extensions, it could well be that conscious interaction is at present too subtle to be so detected.  I'm not sure about your last question but an infant, who has not yet learned to speak, still has consciousness within the body, even if it's  just to yell that it needs feeding or nappy changed.

[Enki]

Another view might be that 'consciousness' has always been in existence and evolving life forms are the result of its interaction with matter and energy and the brain is simply a sophisticated channel for it rather than a creator of it.  When the brain is damaged the passing of objective information which consciousness is aware of becomes distorted or blocked.

If this view is to be of any value apart from being speculation then we need to ask questions about it.

1) What actual evidence is there that this hypothetical 'consciousness' has always been in existence?

2) What actual evidence is there that any life forms at all are the result of some form of interaction between matter/energy and your hypothetical 'consciousness'?

3) How exactly does this pervasive and eternal 'consciousness' link to matter/energy such that it is able to interact with it?

4) What evidence do you have that the brain is simply a channel for this eternal 'consciousness' rather than consciousness being a creation of the brain?

5) Have you any evidence that this 'consciousness' remains after a brain dies?

6) Why, if this 'consciousness' is at present too subtle to be detected should we consider your speculation to be any more valid than any other speculation about consciousness which can also be said to be 'too subtle to be so detected'?

Questions....questions...!   

[SteveH]

Yes but the fact that brain injuries and death can alter and stop consciousness respectively, is pretty strong evidence that consciousness is generated by the brain.

Not necessarily. It could merely be mediated by the brain, like a radio set. If the radio is broken, nothing is received, but the ether is still filled with the radio waves. I'm not saying I believe this, just pointing out that it is theoretically possible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I've explained before; just taking general relativity seriously, we get a 'block universe', time is just a direction through the four dimensional object.

You're getting all confused about the burden of proof again. It's you who insisted that there was evidence for the supernatural. Absence of evidence for something natural is not evidence of the supernatural. Unknowns don't make un-evidenced and ill-defined stories any more believable.

Since the block universe theory is described as eternalism that effectivly rules it out as an alternative to the er,eternal and thus you blow your own thesis.

If you are stating that I have the burden of proof it was you who said there are alternatives to nature either popping out of no where or being eternal. You have obviously failed.

[Sriram]

Hi guys,

The idea that Consciousness (Self or soul or spirit) is universal is an old idea. Not just in religion but also in philosophy.

Even some scientists believed that.  To quote Max Planck, the father of QM....

 "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Even many present day philosophers like Chalmers and scientists like Tononi, clearly consider Consciousness as fundamental and universal.

I have already discussed all this in other threads many times.

Consciousness can exist at many levels.  The conscious awareness or wakefulness, that we commonly consider as consciousness, is just one basic level.

Even people in a vegetative state have been found to be conscious and can communicate.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7150119/Patients-in-vegetative-state-can-think-and-communicate.html

***********
Experts using brain scans have discovered for the first time that the victims, who show no outward signs of awareness, can not only comprehend what people are saying to them but also answer simple questions.

They were able to give yes or no responses to simple biographical questions.

The unlocking of this “inner voice” has astounded doctors and has dramatic implications for thousands of life and death decisions over patients trapped in what is known as a persistent vegetative state.

***********

All this has been discussed time and again.

Problem is that most of you don't want to come out of your comfort zones.  You discuss some concepts independently but are unable to integrate them with other concepts. A case of microscopic, Zoom-In thinking.  You quote Sam Harris making some wishy washy assertion, and you all join together patting each other on the back for reassurance.....and its all back to square one!

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Not necessarily. It could merely be mediated by the brain, like a radio set. If the radio is broken, nothing is received, but the ether is still filled with the radio waves. I'm not saying I believe this, just pointing out that it is theoretically possible.

The idea of a brain as a conduit channelling consciousness when in peak condition is not so far off if we substitute the word 'consciousness' with 'information'.  I would say consciousness is not a thing that is out there, but rather is is a quality of information flow and processing.  This reflects our experience that consciousness varies according to brain function but without the spurious added woo of smuggling consciousness into the domain of fundamental physics. If I am conscious of a pain in my toe, that is an information flow from toe through nerve fibres and the pain centres of the brain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Torri,

The idea of a brain as a conduit channelling consciousness when in peak condition is not so far off if we substitute the word 'consciousness' with 'information'.  I would say consciousness is not a thing that is out there, but rather is is a quality of information flow and processing.  This reflects our experience that consciousness varies according to brain function but without the spurious added woo of smuggling consciousness into the domain of fundamental physics. If I am conscious of a pain in my toe, that is an information flow from toe through nerve fibres and the pain centres of the brain.

Sounds reasonable to me. Where Sriram and others overreach though is to jump from information to sentience without the hard yards of explaining how it could exist, where it would be, how it would interact with brains etc. AB ignores the problem – essentially "it's magic innit" – but it would be nice if others who support an "out there" sentience model at least tried to argue for it.     

[ekim]

If this view is to be of any value apart from being speculation then we need to ask questions about it.

1) What actual evidence is there that this hypothetical 'consciousness' has always been in existence?

2) What actual evidence is there that any life forms at all are the result of some form of interaction between matter/energy and your hypothetical 'consciousness'?

3) How exactly does this pervasive and eternal 'consciousness' link to matter/energy such that it is able to interact with it?

4) What evidence do you have that the brain is simply a channel for this eternal 'consciousness' rather than consciousness being a creation of the brain?

5) Have you any evidence that this 'consciousness' remains after a brain dies?

6) Why, if this 'consciousness' is at present too subtle to be detected should we consider your speculation to be any more valid than any other speculation about consciousness which can also be said to be 'too subtle to be so detected'?

Questions....questions...!   

I suspect that the mystic would only have one answer to all the questions and say that the value doesn't come from questions and answers about speculations but from the conscious 'experience' when such mental agitation become still.  The nature of theology appears to invite such agitation, whereas the nature of 'spiritual' practices is to enter a state of inner stillness where words and meanings signify very little, apart from attempting to guide and encourage others who might be interested.  But now we have mobile phones, facebook, global warming and civilisation's technological excrement filling the oceans and land to keep us busy, who cares.

[wigginhall]

Quite right, ekim,  but theism itself seems to project a grand melodrama about sin and salvation, which obviously gets people very excited.  Or it used to.  It's rather baffling really.  I don't understand where such drama comes from.

[Sriram]

The idea of a brain as a conduit channelling consciousness when in peak condition is not so far off if we substitute the word 'consciousness' with 'information'.  I would say consciousness is not a thing that is out there, but rather is is a quality of information flow and processing.  This reflects our experience that consciousness varies according to brain function but without the spurious added woo of smuggling consciousness into the domain of fundamental physics. If I am conscious of a pain in my toe, that is an information flow from toe through nerve fibres and the pain centres of the brain.

You are still not getting the point.

All the information flow is the Easy problem of explaining functions and mechanisms. Check out Chalmers in the thread on Panpsychism.

The Hard problem is to identify the experiencer behind the experience of the pain.

[Enki]

I suspect that the mystic would only have one answer to all the questions and say that the value doesn't come from questions and answers about speculations but from the conscious 'experience' when such mental agitation become still.  The nature of theology appears to invite such agitation, whereas the nature of 'spiritual' practices is to enter a state of inner stillness where words and meanings signify very little, apart from attempting to guide and encourage others who might be interested.  But now we have mobile phones, facebook, global warming and civilisation's technological excrement filling the oceans and land to keep us busy, who cares.

So, no evidence that this eternal consciousness actually exists then, apart from personal subjective experiences, that is.

I have to assume that my personal experiences are different to yours, Ekim, as I have never felt that there is some sort of eternal consciousness 'out there' at all, even in my quietest moments and even in the occasional transcendental moments that I have experienced.

I appreciate that the mystic would not take kindly to questioning, but in the absence of any answers to the questions that I have asked, then such a view of consciousness as you seem to espouse simply comes over as a personal belief which you are, of course, very welcome to, but, to my mind, is found wanting as a serious description of any sort of universal reality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are still not getting the point.

All the information flow is the Easy problem of explaining functions and mechanisms. Check out Chalmers in the thread on Panpsychism.

The Hard problem is to identify the experiencer behind the experience of the pain.

Yes he is. Whatever you may think the "hard problem" to be, just making stuff up and calling it the answer is intellectually bankrupt. 

[torridon]

You are still not getting the point.

All the information flow is the Easy problem of explaining functions and mechanisms. Check out Chalmers in the thread on Panpsychism.

The Hard problem is to identify the experiencer behind the experience of the pain.

I don't think that is a true description of what is meant by the 'hard problem'.  Chalmers does not suggest 'an experiencer', indeed that would be in the nature of a solution to the hard problem, but it is not a good solution as it is really just an exercise in goal post shifting rather the same as 'god' is an exercise in goal post shifting as an answer to the question 'what is the origin of all things'.  All this gets you is from 'where did everything come from' to 'where did god come from', which is no real progress.

For my money, I think a solution to the hard problem lies not in discovering something that we have not yet discovered such as immaterial experiencers or gods or universal consciousness, but rather in improving our understanding of the things that we have already discovered combined with a deeper realisation of the nature of subjectivity.

[Sriram]

I don't think that is a true description of what is meant by the 'hard problem'.  Chalmers does not suggest 'an experiencer', indeed that would be in the nature of a solution to the hard problem, but it is not a good solution as it is really just an exercise in goal post shifting rather the same as 'god' is an exercise in goal post shifting as an answer to the question 'what is the origin of all things'.  All this gets you is from 'where did everything come from' to 'where did god come from', which is no real progress.

For my money, I think a solution to the hard problem lies not in discovering something that we have not yet discovered such as immaterial experiencers or gods or universal consciousness, but rather in improving our understanding of the things that we have already discovered combined with a deeper realisation of the nature of subjectivity.

A 'deeper realization of the nature of subjectivity' lies in knowing the Self, not in denying it!

[ekim]

Quite right, ekim,  but theism itself seems to project a grand melodrama about sin and salvation, which obviously gets people very excited.  Or it used to.  It's rather baffling really.  I don't understand where such drama comes from.

I suspect that it originates from those who wished to exercise power and control over the masses, what better way than positioning yourself between God and people and using the carrot and stick method of Hell and Heaven, sin and salvation to manipulate them.

[ekim]

(1) So, no evidence that this eternal consciousness actually exists then, apart from personal subjective experiences, that is.

(2) I have to assume that my personal experiences are different to yours, Ekim, as I have never felt that there is some sort of eternal consciousness 'out there' at all, even in my quietest moments and even in the occasional transcendental moments that I have experienced.

(3) I appreciate that the mystic would not take kindly to questioning, but in the absence of any answers to the questions that I have asked, then such a view of consciousness as you seem to espouse simply comes over as a personal belief which you are, of course, very welcome to, but, to my mind, is found wanting as a serious description of any sort of universal reality.

(1) I don't know how one could get evidence about absolutes like 'eternal'.  Personally I wouldn't bother,  I would doubt whether a temporal and finite mind could envision the eternal and infinite.

(2)  That's the problem with inner experiences and attempts to compare them and why much scripture relies upon mythos - communication by analogy, simile, parables.

(3)  I don't think mystics mind questions but when involved in a practice like, say, inner stillness meditation, it is difficult enough to deal with a mind full of thoughts and concepts without introducing questions.  The view of consciousness that I was suggesting as an alternative to brain manufactured consciousness is what (to me) appears in various guises in literature associated with mystics.  Many mystics worth their salt will preface what they say with 'Do not believe me, but if you are interested here is a way to help you discover for yourself'.  See what I said above regarding absolutes, I would class 'universal reality' as such.  The only thing I can suggest as regards this is that the words 'merging' and 'union' (oneness) tend to get used and the methods employed by mystics are like a raindrop merging with an ocean, where individuality is lost and replaced by the oceanic.  This can happen unconsciously as in deep dreamless sleep or with practice, consciously.

[torridon]

A 'deeper realization of the nature of subjectivity' lies in knowing the Self, not in denying it!

I'm not denying the Self, but rather, I think what we call 'the Self' is something that arises as a focus of subjectivity, or better, the subjective aspect of the agglomeration of information/matter/energy flows within a bounded region of spacetime.  It doesn't make sense to talk about 'the self' as if it were something universal, diffuse and ubiquitous, it is a localised focus of information integration that is the outcome of brain functioning. A human has a self, a phenomenon of mind arising out of its energy and information and memory flows; so does a hedgehog to a lesser degree, but a rock has no self as there is no integration or memory retention happening in a rock.

[Sriram]

I suspect that it originates from those who wished to exercise power and control over the masses, what better way than positioning yourself between God and people and using the carrot and stick method of Hell and Heaven, sin and salvation to manipulate them.

I don't think the idea of heaven and hell are created just to manipulate people. They are important concepts to make people live in line with the rules so that they can develop and realize the truth for themselves. Like we tell children lots of stories to make them follow certain rules but once they get habituated the stories are not required. The stories are meant for their own development. Some amount of carrot and stick is a must for everyone.

Secondly, we can't be sure that such 'other worlds' don't really exist. Some people having NDE's have claimed to have had hellish experiences while most seem to have a heavenly experience.

[ekim]

I don't think the idea of heaven and hell are created just to manipulate people. They are important concepts to make people live in line with the rules so that they can develop and realize the truth for themselves. Like we tell children lots of stories to make them follow certain rules but once they get habituated the stories are not required. The stories are meant for their own development. Some amount of carrot and stick is a must for everyone.

Secondly, we can't be sure that such 'other worlds' don't really exist. Some people having NDE's have claimed to have had hellish experiences while most seem to have a heavenly experience.

Unfortunately, within the Abrahamic religions, religious indoctrination has been used, and probably still is, to manipulate people to kill the heretics or infidels and find paradise as a result.  The nature of indoctrination is to keep adults in a childlike submissive state and obey the 11th Commandment .... Thou shalt not question!