Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

Then you presume wrong.
It is the contemplation of my ability to think which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that I comprise more than mere flesh and blood.

So how did you get to god, and not super powerful aliens or pixies or leprechauns or Thor or Wotan or any other of the thousands of gods that human have believed in.

Also, you cannot assume a god unless you can demonstrate a god.

Can you?

If not then you must not ever use god in any of your conclusions.

[Gordon]

Then you presume wrong.
It is the contemplation of my ability to think which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that I comprise more than mere flesh and blood.

Your ability to think, Alan, is due to your biology: the problem you have in this specific area of thought is that your notion of 'God' is getting in the way.

[Alan Burns]

Your ability to think, Alan, is due to your biology: the problem you have in this specific area of thought is that your notion of 'God' is getting in the way.

But to substantiate this, Gordon, you need to  define a thought in biological terms.
Over to you.

[Gordon]

But to substantiate this, Gordon, you need to  define a thought in biological terms.
Over to you.

Certainly: I'd explain (not 'define') thinking as being a biological process that happens in our brains, and not in our fingernails or liver, since those who study mental processes, such as thinking and memory etc, already have sufficient evidence to confirm this.

That you'd prefer it were otherwise makes no difference to where the evidence leads.

[Alan Burns]

Certainly: I'd explain (not 'define') thinking as being a biological process that happens in our brains, and not in our fingernails or liver, since those who study mental processes, such as thinking and memory etc, already have sufficient evidence to confirm this.

That you'd prefer it were otherwise makes no difference to where the evidence leads.

OK, so you have defined where you think it is.  Well done.
So I ask again, how do you define a thought in biological terms.

[Gordon]

OK, so you have defined where you think it is.  Well done.
So I ask again, how do you define a thought in biological terms.

I already told you: a thought is a biological event that occurs in your brain: for example, it is well known that when people dream (which involves neurological processes) this is detectable via EEG - this is what is known as a 'clue' that something is happening in the brain. Similarly, trauma or organic brain changes can affect thinking and memory recall.

I can't fully explain gravity either, but even so it does seem sufficient to stop me floating upwards and discourages me from jumping out of 4th storey windows onto concrete.

[torridon]

OK, so you have defined where you think it is.  Well done.
So I ask again, how do you define a thought in biological terms.

In broad terms, a wave of neural propagation. The word 'thought' is not closely defined, of course, not even in common parlance, presumably the neural correlates of various types of thought also vary.

[Alan Burns]

In broad terms, a wave of neural propagation. The word 'thought' is not closely defined, of course, not even in common parlance, presumably the neural correlates of various types of thought also vary.

There is a huge gap between the perceived neural activity and the personal perception of a conscious thought.  The concept of how this neural activity becomes thought is way beyond our current scientific knowledge.  All we have is some form of correlation between a detectable electro chemical activity in the brain and our consciously perceived thought.  We can't presume that the neural activity alone comprises all that is needed to generate a conscious thought unless we can define what comprises the end result - the perceived thought.  The main problem in all this is trying to define what the central entity of perception is and how it generates thoughts and perceives sensory data.

[BeRational]

There is a huge gap between the perceived neural activity and the personal perception of a conscious thought.  The concept of how this neural activity becomes thought is way beyond our current scientific knowledge.  All we have is some form of correlation between a detectable electro chemical activity in the brain and our consciously perceived of thought.  We can't presume that the neural activity alone comprises all that is needed to generate a conscious thought unless we can define what comprises the end result - the perceived thought.  The main problem in all this is trying to define what the entity of perception is and how it generates thoughts and perceives sensory data.

So, because there is not a complete description of how it works, you feel you can make up any answer  you like and provide  no evidence or reasoning to support it, other than incredulity?

[wigginhall]

I have to laugh when Alan says that something is beyond our scientific knowledge.  But of course, our knowledge of souls is generating lots of scientific research, I just can't find a link right now.

[torridon]

There is a huge gap between the perceived neural activity and the personal perception of a conscious thought.  The concept of how this neural activity becomes thought is way beyond our current scientific knowledge.  All we have is some form of correlation between a detectable electro chemical activity in the brain and our consciously perceived thought.  We can't presume that the neural activity alone comprises all that is needed to generate a conscious thought unless we can define what comprises the end result - the perceived thought.  The main problem in all this is trying to define what the central entity of perception is and how it generates thoughts and perceives sensory data.

So, there is a gap.  Firstly, gaps in knowledge do not justify a position of not following the evidence that we do have.  Secondly, rather than stuffing that gap with simplistic pre-scientific notions like soul, gods whatever, surely it is better to keep an open mind; that way we remain more open to break new ground in our understanding.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is a huge gap between the perceived neural activity and the personal perception of a conscious thought.

No there isn’t. “Personal perception” is just that – personal and perception. It has no explanatory value because it’s just an emotional response to a complex underlying process.   

The concept of how this neural activity becomes thought is way beyond our current scientific knowledge.

“Way beyond” is just your personal opinion on the matter. No one says that the explanations science offer are complete, but they do seem at least to be some significant way toward a cogent theory. Just saying “there are gaps” and dropping magic solutions into them about which you have no information of any kind is very bad thinking. 
 

All we have is some form of correlation between a detectable electro chemical activity in the brain and our consciously perceived of thought.

All science relies on correlation. We cannot be sure that our ability to understand necessarily describes reality so we rely on correlative evidence to provide models and theories to do the job for us. This is basic stuff. 

We can't presume that the neural activity alone comprises all that is needed to generate a conscious thought unless we can define what comprises the end result - the perceived thought.

That’s a non sequitur, but in any case we can presume that for the same reason that we can presume that physical processes are all that’s necessary for gravity to operate. We can leave the door open to the possibility of other options, but absent any means to take them from the possible to the probable (one of the various problems you always run away from) rational people at least have no choice but to proceed on the basis of that presumption.     

The main problem in all this is trying to define what the entity of perception is and how it generates thoughts and perceives sensory data.

No it isn’t. All the evidence we have tells us that “the entity of perception” is us – single, integrated, self-aware organisms. How it works is to a significant degree understood already, but the gaps in the current state of knowledge are what make people who actually work in the field get up in the morning: to find out more. Superstitious evangelists with very bad thought processes and faith beliefs that are some 300 years out of date and about which they have no information whatever offer nothing to that enterprise.   

[Alan Burns]

So, because there is not a complete description of how it works, you feel you can make up any answer  you like and provide  no evidence or reasoning to support it, other than incredulity?

But I am not just making up any answer.

What I am implying is that the spiritual awareness which has existed in the human race for the last few thousand years was no accident.  Could the crude selective process of evolution have given us the ability to consciously conceive of souls, heaven and God?  The perceived impossibility of getting material reactions alone to generate a single entity of conscious awareness is viable evidence to confirm the truth underlying the spiritual awareness evident throughout human history.

[Roses]

But I am not just making up any answer.

What I am implying is that the spiritual awareness which has existed in the human race for the last few thousand years was no accident.  Could the crude selective process of evolution have given us the ability to consciously conceive of souls, heaven and God?  The perceived impossibility of getting material reactions alone to generate a single entity of conscious awareness is viable evidence to confirm the truth underlying the spiritual awareness evident throughout human history.

The Biblical god is only one of many which humans have worshipped over the centuries. Humans have good imaginations when it comes to creating the genre.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I am not just making up any answer.

Absent logic or evidence to validate them, yes you are.

What I am implying is that the spiritual awareness which has existed in the human race for the last few thousand years was no accident.

"Spiritual awareness" is just something you've made up (or that someone else has made up and you've believed).

Could the crude selective process of evolution have given us the ability to consciously conceive of souls, heaven and God?

Yes, and it's not "crude". Evolution has enabled us to "consciously conceive" of lots of things, so there's no reason to exclude just some of them from that paradigm.

The perceived impossibility of getting material reactions alone to generate a single entity of conscious awareness is viable evidence to confirm the truth underlying the spiritual awareness evident throughout human history.

Utter nonsense. The "perceived impossibility" is just that - a perception, and moreover one you personally happen to rely on because not thinking about its implications allows you to wrap your faith beliefs in cotton wool.

[Alan Burns]

Utter nonsense. The "perceived impossibility" is just that - a perception, and moreover one you personally happen to rely on because not thinking about its implications allows you to wrap your faith beliefs in cotton wool.

So what is perception?
Can you not see the profound difference between perception and reaction?

[torridon]

What I am implying is that the spiritual awareness which has existed in the human race for the last few thousand years was no accident.  Could the crude selective process of evolution have given us the ability to consciously conceive of souls, heaven and God?  The perceived impossibility of getting material reactions alone to generate a single entity of conscious awareness is viable evidence to confirm the truth underlying the spiritual awareness evident throughout human history.

No, no reason to imagine any value in that.  Where is the evidence that material reactions cannot produce awareness ?  If there is any, then post it up, otherwise you are just wasting people's time with nothing more than your old pal, incredulity.

[torridon]

So what is perception?
Can you not see the profound difference between perception and reaction?

Visual perception happens in the robin; and the tortoise and the frog and anything else that has eyes.  No magic is required, this is a ubiquitous phenomenon of nature.

[BeRational]

But I am not just making up any answer.

What I am implying is that the spiritual awareness which has existed in the human race for the last few thousand years was no accident.  Could the crude selective process of evolution have given us the ability to consciously conceive of souls, heaven and God?  The perceived impossibility of getting material reactions alone to generate a single entity of conscious awareness is viable evidence to confirm the truth underlying the spiritual awareness evident throughout human history.

Yes you are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So what is perception?

Do you not think you ought to find out before making your various assertions about it - like being impossible naturalistically?

Can you not see the profound difference between perception and reaction?

No, because it's just something else you've made up. I can come up with various examples of "reaction" that we don't perceive consciously until after they begin - shivering when it's cold for example - but your unqualified assertions seem to be suggesting something else.

I notice by the way that you persist in ignoring all the rebuttals to your efforts you don't like or can't respond to and reply instead with only more personal incredulity. Why is that, and how do you think it makes you look here? 

Let's try again with one of the various questions you run away from: can you see that you would perceive a separate "you" doing the choosing in exactly the same way you would perceive an integrated you that's a self-aware naturalistic organism?

And if you can see that the two perceptions would be identical at an experiential level, why then opt for the explanatory model that's relies on magic over the one that relies on reason and evidence?   

[Sebastian Toe]

What I am implying is that the spiritual awareness which has existed in the human race for the last few thousand years was no accident. 

How few is the last few thousand years?
I assume that you have a basis for that statement?

[Gordon]

But I am not just making up any answer.

What I am implying is that the spiritual awareness which has existed in the human race for the last few thousand years was no accident.  Could the crude selective process of evolution have given us the ability to consciously conceive of souls, heaven and God?  The perceived impossibility of getting material reactions alone to generate a single entity of conscious awareness is viable evidence to confirm the truth underlying the spiritual awareness evident throughout human history.

You've gravitated from theobabble to theobollocks.

[SusanDoris]

You've gravitated from theobabble to theobollocks.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Do you not think you ought to find out before making your various assertions about it - like being impossible naturalistically?

All I asked is "what is perception?"
By this answer I must assume you can't define perception in scientific terms.
Which is not surprising because scientists have this trouble too.

No, because it's just something else you've made up.

All I asked was "can you not see the profound difference between perception and reaction?"
Are you seriously accusing me of making up the fact that there is a difference between reaction and perception?

I can come up with various examples of "reaction" that we don't perceive consciously until after they begin - shivering when it's cold for example - but your unqualified assertions seem to be suggesting something else.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Reactions occur whether they are perceived or not.  The perception is entirely separate to the reaction.  It is awareness of a reaction, not the reaction itself.  You seem to be confused between the two.

I notice by the way that you persist in ignoring all the rebuttals to your efforts you don't like or can't respond to and reply instead with only more personal incredulity. Why is that, and how do you think it makes you look here?

I receive rebuttals from several posters for every post I make, and I would love to have the time to respond in detail to them all.

Let's try again with one of the various questions you run away from: can you see that you would perceive a separate "you" doing the choosing in exactly the same way you would perceive an integrated you that's a self-aware naturalistic organism?

Without a conscious controller, the biological machine becomes a puppet with nothing but nature pulling the strings.

And if you can see that the two perceptions would be identical at an experiential level, why then opt for the explanatory model that's relies on magic over the one that relies on reason and evidence?

See above

[torridon]

Are you seriously accusing me of making up the fact that there is a difference between reaction and perception? Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Reactions occur whether they are perceived or not.  The perception is entirely separate to the reaction.  It is awareness of a reaction, not the reaction itself.  You seem to be confused between the two.

Perception is a complex phenomenon.  Ask, yourself, what is made of ?  Answer : it is made of reactions, reactions at the neurological level, at cellular level, at molecular level, trillions of them.  Is a house entirely separate from the bricks from which it is made ?  One derives from the other.