Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Eerm, all experience is brain generated Sriram, as far as we know; that's the purpose of a brain, to generate experience.  If you stub your toe, it is your brain that generates the experience of pain on behalf of the toe; if you admire a sunset, it is your brain generating the redness you see, it is not 'out there'.

Taking your example of stubbing the toe. The source of the pain is not the brain...by the way. The source is the event of stubbing the toe. The brain and the nervous system only convey the pain....to the consciousness.  And what is this consciousness? Science has no idea.

That's completely wrong, from start to finish, or should I say, from head to toe  .  A toe injury will initiate the process, but it is the brain that generates the experience.  Painkillers work on your brain, you know, not on your toe.

Science has plenty of ideas on consciousness; just as chemistry was a top topic to the Victorians, artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness are hot topics in science today.  There is a BBC radio interview with one of the leading researchers into consciousness, Anil Seth,  in about an hour, if you are interested :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05xxhvy

[Sriram]

Eerm, all experience is brain generated Sriram, as far as we know; that's the purpose of a brain, to generate experience.  If you stub your toe, it is your brain that generates the experience of pain on behalf of the toe; if you admire a sunset, it is your brain generating the redness you see, it is not 'out there'.

Taking your example of stubbing the toe. The source of the pain is not the brain...by the way. The source is the event of stubbing the toe. The brain and the nervous system only convey the pain....to the consciousness.  And what is this consciousness? Science has no idea.

That's completely wrong, from start to finish.  A toe injury will initiate the process, but it is the brain that generates the experience.  Painkillers work on your brain, you know, not on your toe.

Science has plenty of ideas on consciousness; just as chemistry was a top topic to the Victorians, artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness are hot topics in science today.  There is a BBC radio interview with one of the leading researchers into consciousness, Anil Seth,  in about an hour, if you are interested :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05xxhvy

You are wanting to misunderstand...that's the problem. My point was about the source of the pain..not its conduit. The brain may convert the signal to 'pain'....but its still not the source of the experience. 

Merely treating the pain through pain killers will not solve the problem, by the way. The pain will continue. The toe needs to be treated to stop the pain. 

So...the brain is not the source of the experience...its the toe.

[Leonard James]

So...the brain is not the source of the experience...its the toe.

No, Sriram. The toe is not the source of the experience. The source is the nerve endings in the toe, and those nerve endings are part of the brain. The nervous system is simply an extended part of the brain.

[torridon]

Eerm, all experience is brain generated Sriram, as far as we know; that's the purpose of a brain, to generate experience.  If you stub your toe, it is your brain that generates the experience of pain on behalf of the toe; if you admire a sunset, it is your brain generating the redness you see, it is not 'out there'.

Taking your example of stubbing the toe. The source of the pain is not the brain...by the way. The source is the event of stubbing the toe. The brain and the nervous system only convey the pain....to the consciousness.  And what is this consciousness? Science has no idea.

That's completely wrong, from start to finish.  A toe injury will initiate the process, but it is the brain that generates the experience.  Painkillers work on your brain, you know, not on your toe.

Science has plenty of ideas on consciousness; just as chemistry was a top topic to the Victorians, artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness are hot topics in science today.  There is a BBC radio interview with one of the leading researchers into consciousness, Anil Seth,  in about an hour, if you are interested :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05xxhvy

You are wanting to misunderstand...that's the problem. My point was about the source of the pain..not its conduit. The brain may convert the signal to 'pain'....but its still not the source of the experience. 

Merely treating the pain through pain killers will not solve the problem, by the way. The pain will continue. The toe needs to be treated to stop the pain. 

So...the brain is not the source of the experience...its the toe.

The injury is the ultimate source of the pain, but it is not the seat of experience. A person in a coma will feel no pain at all.  The sensation of pain is produced by the brain as part of our consciousness stream. All experience is fabricated within the processes of consciousness

[torridon]

So...the brain is not the source of the experience...its the toe.

No, Sriram. The toe is not the source of the experience. The source is the nerve endings in the toe, and those nerve endings are part of the brain. The nervous system is simply an extended part of the brain.

Yes that might be a good way to view it. Or alternatively, developmental biologists view the brain as an outgrowth of the spinal cord.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Post 1069, not even at the starting gate, Amen to that big man.

let's see, God is a Shaker post when he is at his best, God is a Wigginhall post when he opens your mind to new thoughts, God is a Almost Sensible post when I walk away thinking, must try to be a better Christian.

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

So...the brain is not the source of the experience...its the toe.

No, Sriram. The toe is not the source of the experience. The source is the nerve endings in the toe, and those nerve endings are part of the brain. The nervous system is simply an extended part of the brain.

Yes that might be a good way to view it. Or alternatively, developmental biologists view the brain as an outgrowth of the spinal cord.

Yes, either way they all work together as if they are one organ. I feel we do wrong to consider the nervous system and the brain as separate entities.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Post 1069, not even at the starting gate, Amen to that big man.

let's see, God is a Shaker post when he is at his best, God is a Wigginhall post when he opens your mind to new thoughts, God is a Almost Sensible post when I walk away thinking, must try to be a better Christian.

Gonnagle.

Always glad to be of help, Gonzo.

One of the contradictions in some theists approach, as far as I am concerned, is that they start with this unknowable and ineffable idea that unto it we are like ants, and then tell me it is concerned about me believing in it, which makes it sound weirdly effable.

[Nearly Sane]

It still makes no sense. If Adam didn't know that disobeying "God" was wrong, it was unjust to condemn him for doing so.

By 'knowledge of good and evil' is meant, knowledge in the sense of experience. So you have free will to choose between good and evil actions, but you don't 'know' them until after the action.

If you choose an action but don't know that it is wrong, it is totally unjust to punish you for it afterwards.

Why? If I'm not punished I might do it again.

You might - that surely is where explanation rather than punishment comes in, yes?

That won't help though because human nature is curiosity- wanting to see if the authority will really carry out the punishment. If I've already been warned that I will be punished if I do such and such, then it is not unjust to carry out the punishment, if I go ahead and do it.

So, if it is human nature, and your God created human nature and is omniscient, and if it will lead to challenging his authority, he created humans by your logic to challenge his authority and be punished?

No- no more than you or I would have children just for the sake of disciplining them.

We are not omniscient

[floo]

The argument we are 'children' of the deity, therefore it has the right and duty to discipline us, as human parents do is bonkers! Its idea of discipline, according to the Bible, is so OTT, any human perpetrating such acts would be disciplined themselves with life in prison, at the very least!

[Alan Burns]

You are dodging my question.  Yes, the choices a goose makes might be more predictable than the choices a human makes, but I wasn't asking you about predictability in this case. And of course we cannot determine through empirical methods that other animals have some sort of inner experience analagous to ours. But that is the reasonable assumption that I am sure you make every day, unless you are a solipsist, which I doubt. 

So let's try that again :  do you think that a goose must have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

The point I was making about predictable behaviour is that it is an indication that the animal may not have free will, and all behaviour is generated by physical reactions.  If animal behaviour is predictable, it does not need a soul to explain its behaviour.  So we know the goose reacts on a predictable way which does not require a soul.

[Sassy]

I find it fascinating that within the space of a few minutes two entirely different posters have responded to the same point with diametrically opposing views - for Sriram, knowing something of our actual place in the universe based on scientific endeavour is something that "... generally inflates our ego about our intellect, capabilities and knowledge. We begin to assume that we are in control in some way," whereas it makes Alan "... feel very trivial - just an accidental blip in the vast scale of time and space."

A rich field for psychology, this one.

How many responses can you get from human nature?

What is not known is more interesting and what we can only assume has nothing to really support it.
Nothing rich about it.. Psychologically the responses are limited and all obvious reactions..

[BeRational]

You are dodging my question.  Yes, the choices a goose makes might be more predictable than the choices a human makes, but I wasn't asking you about predictability in this case. And of course we cannot determine through empirical methods that other animals have some sort of inner experience analagous to ours. But that is the reasonable assumption that I am sure you make every day, unless you are a solipsist, which I doubt. 

So let's try that again :  do you think that a goose must have a soul in order to experience the inner sensation of fear ?

The point I was making about predictable behaviour is that it is an indication that the animal may not have free will, and all behaviour is generated by physical reactions.  If animal behaviour is predictable, it does not need a soul to explain its behaviour.  So we know the goose reacts on a predictable way which does not require a soul.

Humans are also very predictable. Derren Brown demonstrated this very well in his act.

We like to think we are not, but can be easily influenced to act and behave in certain ways.

[Nearly Sane]

And lottery machines are quite hard to predict, so they must have souls.

[Maeght]

We've gone over this many times with Alan it won't make any difference because Alan has to believe that we have soul's and free will to fit in with his theology.

[floo]

And lottery machines are quite hard to predict, so they must have souls.

 

[wigginhall]

That's a new one on me, geese have no soul.   I met a goose in Bath called Lucy, and she was adorable, and we looked after her for a while.  She was nicer than some humans I could mention.  She used to stand in the garden and look in the window, was that predictable?  No.   She exuded Northern soul.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

That's a new one on me, geese have no soul.   I met a goose in Bath called Lucy, and she was adorable, and we looked after her for a while.  She was nicer than some humans I could mention.  She used to stand in the garden and look in the window, was that predictable?  No.   She exuded Northern soul.

Some atheists shout, where's yer bloody evidence, maybe that's a new road to travel, evolution and a sense of humour, wonder if our Leonard has the answer, he likes evolution.

Gonnagle.

[/b]

[Nearly Sane]

Quite possibly an inspiration for the below, wigginhall

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=cC43AEZ7zm8

[ekim]

So...the brain is not the source of the experience...its the toe.

No, Sriram. The toe is not the source of the experience. The source is the nerve endings in the toe, and those nerve endings are part of the brain. The nervous system is simply an extended part of the brain.

Yes that might be a good way to view it. Or alternatively, developmental biologists view the brain as an outgrowth of the spinal cord.

I'm not sure that it helps to oversimplify what is complex physiology.  The eye, for instance, is a receptor of the stimulus of light which it receives on the retina as two dimensional and somehow the brain creates a three dimensional image.  The brain can be confused by optical illusions and visual images can appear without external stimulus e.g. as in dreams.  Phantom limb pain can appear without the 'brain' in the leg being present.  People have had surgery under hypnosis without consciousness of pain, yet still being awake to the procedure.  I think there is still a way to go as regards 'consciousness', if it exists.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ekim,

I think there is still a way to go as regards 'consciousness', if it exists.

We are monkeys, or apes or ape like creatures just emerging from the cave, I think one of the answers is humility, humble before God or the universe, whatever floats your boat.

Gonnagle.

[Alan Burns]

Science has plenty of ideas on consciousness; just as chemistry was a top topic to the Victorians, artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness are hot topics in science today.  There is a BBC radio interview with one of the leading researchers into consciousness, Anil Seth,  in about an hour, if you are interested :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05xxhvy

Just listened to this.  He says a lot about what consciousness does, but does not really expand upon what consciousness is, apart from a vague reference that it somehow emerges from a particular arrangement of matter.  I still maintain that consciousness is perception of what goes on in the material brain, rather than the brain itself.

[floo]

I will never in a million years see matters of faith in the way Alan Burns does, at least I certainly hope not. However, to give the man his due, however much flak he takes from others about his take on religion he doesn't seem to loose his cool. One 'Christian', in particular, might take a leaf out of his book when they take offense at the slightest thing and respond very unpleasantly indeed. Take a BOW Alan.

[Shaker]

I will never in a million years see matters of faith in the way Alan Burns does, at least I certainly hope not. However, to give the man his due, however much flak he takes from others about his take on religion he doesn't seem to loose his cool.

This is rather easy to achieve if (a) you are intensely selective about which points you respond to and (b) never truly grapple head-on with the fatal challenges and criticisms so often raised.

[floo]

I will never in a million years see matters of faith in the way Alan Burns does, at least I certainly hope not. However, to give the man his due, however much flak he takes from others about his take on religion he doesn't seem to loose his cool.

This is rather easy to achieve if (a) you are intensely selective about which points you respond to and (b) never truly grapple head-on with the fatal challenges and criticisms so often raised.

Another Christian poster is pretty selective about the points to which they respond, but it doesn't stop them having a good b*tch about those who have challenged them!