Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

I would dispute any notion of souls in the sense of some internally resident supernatural entity as that is grade A woo without any real justification; it diminishes us all to suffer such superstition in a public space; unreason and dishonesty should always be given no quarter imv.

As it should be in any intelligent person's view. Sadly, not all intelligent people are immune to religious indoctrination.

And if the 'soul' defines something that isn't woo?

I have no issue with a casual notion of 'soul' meaning, the core, or essence, of someone's personality. But a notion of a 'soul' in the duallist sense, some immaterial being inhabiting my body, that's strictly woo.

You know my definition of spirituality by now - to me 'soul' and 'spirit' are interchangeable terms so the soul/spirit is the part of us that our spirituality nourishes - the part of us that has needs beyond what is essential for our physical survival and that makes us who we are.

I don't think it 'diminishes' us if someone genuinely believes in the idea that the essence of who we are is somehow separate from our physical selves due to personal experience or conviction - we can't choose to unbelieve any more than we can choose to believe after all.  It's only when claims are made for it that cannot be demonstrated (such as we see here from Alan) or someone seeks to use this notion to control the behaviour of others that it becomes a problem.

[Rhiannon]

Moderator:

Can we have less name calling and more debate please.

[Shaker]

Moderator:

Can we have less name calling and more debate please.

Quite right!

Bunch of dicks.

[trippymonkey]

Moderator:

Can we have less name calling and more debate please.

Quite right!

Bunch of dicks.

Can we debate that, please.
Like we need to !?!? LOL

[Alan Burns]

A computer can be programmed to react to an image by analysing the colours and shapes and textures within the image to produce an appropriate reaction.  The analysis will involve lots of programmed logic, but at no point in the analysis will the whole picture actually be perceived in the way human sight perceives.  The analysis will just involve sequences of logical steps to produce a result.  This is the type of "seeing" I assume animals have in order to react according to programmed instinct and experience. 

It is difficult for us to imagine that an animal can't see in the way humans do, but in order to do that they would need an entity (a soul) which simultaneously perceives the content of many brain cells as opposed to just analysing them in a computer like way.

Alan, the human brain does NOT see the whole picture simultaneously. What you see is the part of the whole picture you are looking at. You are aware that other things are there peripherally, but you can't see what they are unless you direct your eyes to them.

Hi Len,
Just going back to this subject of perception.

Just look at a flower.
You perceive the whole flower, not just part of it, and you also perceive the beauty in the flower.  The numerous brain cells involved in this perception are merely messengers.  The recipient of all this is you, not just a collection of random atomic particles.  You are your soul.  Your soul is you.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

And you are showing yourself for the idiot that you are.

You have nothing to say but you keep saying it.

Rattle, rattle, rattle!!   

Idiot!

Well, you're the expert on idiocy, from rich experience!!   

Liar and idiot!

Prove it!  Not just by your opinion, which is worthless, but by actual proof.  Can you do it:  can you pass the test?         

You are clearly an idiot

Prove that I am an idiot!   

Show me some evidence:  your opinion is totally worthless!

Can you pass the test?

[BashfulAnthony]

Moderator:

Can we have less name calling and more debate please.

Quite right!

Bunch of dicks.

You've got a pretty low opinion of yourself!   

[Leonard James]

Hi Len,
Just going back to this subject of perception.

Just look at a flower.
You perceive the whole flower, not just part of it...

Well now, Alan, you are not thinking beyond the end of your nose. What you can see depends entirely on the size of the flower and how close you bring it to your eyes. Your brain recognises only a relatively small circle in the centre of your field of vision, the rest is perceived but not clearly. The brain is only capable of seeing and recognising clearly a very restricted, central area.

...and you also perceive the beauty in the flower.  The numerous brain cells involved in this perception are merely messengers.

Except that you are talking about two different sets of brain cells working together. First the part of the brain responding to visual stimulation from the retina in the eye, which you are calling the messengers, and a second, quite different part of the brain which generates aesthetic appreciation.

The recipient of all this is you, not just a collection of random atomic particles.

Not so. The recipient of all this is my entire brain, ME.

You are your soul.  Your soul is you.

What you think is a separate part of you is nothing more than your whole brain, working in unison and producing what you perceive as 'you'.

[torridon]

Just look at a flower.
You perceive the whole flower, not just part of it, and you also perceive the beauty in the flower.  The numerous brain cells involved in this perception are merely messengers.  The recipient of all this is you, not just a collection of random atomic particles.  You are your soul.  Your soul is you.

The same thinking says an antelope's soul is it, and lemur's soul is it.

If I go on safari and notice a lion creeping up on me, there is more than a pixelated image of a lion going on; I understand the implications of what I see, that I am in mortal danger, I run like hell for my life in stark terror.

If I go on safari and notice a lion creeping up on an antelope, there is more than a pixelated image of a lion going on in the antelope's mind; it too knows that it is in mortal danger, it runs like hell in stark terror.

I don't see any significant difference such that I have to have a whole different mechanism to be able to feel fear.

[Alan Burns]

Just look at a flower.
You perceive the whole flower, not just part of it, and you also perceive the beauty in the flower.  The numerous brain cells involved in this perception are merely messengers.  The recipient of all this is you, not just a collection of random atomic particles.  You are your soul.  Your soul is you.

The same thinking says an antelope's soul is it, and lemur's soul is it.

If I go on safari and notice a lion creeping up on me, there is more than a pixelated image of a lion going on; I understand the implications of what I see, that I am in mortal danger, I run like hell for my life in stark terror.

If I go on safari and notice a lion creeping up on an antelope, there is more than a pixelated image of a lion going on in the antelope's mind; it too knows that it is in mortal danger, it runs like hell in stark terror.

I don't see any significant difference such that I have to have a whole different mechanism to be able to feel fear.

But lemurs, antelopes and lions merely react to the images they receive.  Does any animal look at a flower just to see the beauty in it?

[Rhiannon]

Our perception of beauty has evolved for our wellbeing. As children we look at, and listen to, attractive things to improve our perception skills. As adults we need to have mental wellbeing because our brains are so complex, and our emotional and mental wellbeing impact on our physical wellbeing. Pausing to contemplate beauty in any form is a way to mindfulness, essential to slow our mental chatter and bring stillness. It's well-known (and widely studied) that people who feel connected to the beauty of the natural world have better wellbeing than those who don't, and that creative expression also has benefits. You cannot divorce mental from physical wellbeing, hence our aesthetic pleasures exist to keep us functioning as optimally as possible.

[ekim]

Alan

You are your soul.  Your soul is you.   .....
What you think is a separate part of you is nothing more than your whole brain, working in unison and producing what you perceive as 'you'.

Alan, this is what happens when you objectify 'soul'.  You have used a subject 'you' and a possessive 'your' and Leonard has similarly replied that 'you are your whole working brain'.  Leonard has the stronger claim by identifying himself with the brain.  If his brain changes through, say, dementia he will become a different Leonard or have a complete loss of identity.  You would have even greater difficulty in persuading him that his soul goes marching on.

[Leonard James]

But lemurs, antelopes and lions merely react to the images they receive.  Does any animal look at a flower just to see the beauty in it?

We don't know that. But I have told you the story of bower birds constructing a nest which they think will attract the female aesthetically, so why keep ignoring the fact that they have a rudimentary idea of beauty.

[torridon]

Just look at a flower.
You perceive the whole flower, not just part of it, and you also perceive the beauty in the flower.  The numerous brain cells involved in this perception are merely messengers.  The recipient of all this is you, not just a collection of random atomic particles.  You are your soul.  Your soul is you.

The same thinking says an antelope's soul is it, and lemur's soul is it.

If I go on safari and notice a lion creeping up on me, there is more than a pixelated image of a lion going on; I understand the implications of what I see, that I am in mortal danger, I run like hell for my life in stark terror.

If I go on safari and notice a lion creeping up on an antelope, there is more than a pixelated image of a lion going on in the antelope's mind; it too knows that it is in mortal danger, it runs like hell in stark terror.

I don't see any significant difference such that I have to have a whole different mechanism to be able to feel fear.

But lemurs, antelopes and lions merely react to the images they receive.  Does any animal look at a flower just to see the beauty in it?

I agree humans have developed a richer sense of aesthetics.  But that doesn't justify an entire new paradigm for how conscious perception works in humans an opposed to other animals. That antelope has feelings too, it experiences fear and exitement like we do, there is no reason to suppose otherwise.

[Leonard James]

I agree humans have developed a richer sense of aesthetics.  But that doesn't justify an entire new paradigm for how conscious perception works in humans an opposed to other animals. That antelope has feelings too, it experiences fear and exitement like we do, there is no reason to suppose otherwise.

I would like to add to this point, and say that many sexually reproducing species choose their partner and reject others, and  this normally happens after a display of some sort by the partner they choose, either in appearance or performance (or both). Making a choice of this sort can only be regarded as aesthetic, imo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just look at a flower.
You perceive the whole flower, not just part of it, and you also perceive the beauty in the flower.  The numerous brain cells involved in this perception are merely messengers.  The recipient of all this is you, not just a collection of random atomic particles.  You are your soul.  Your soul is you.

The same thinking says an antelope's soul is it, and lemur's soul is it.

If I go on safari and notice a lion creeping up on me, there is more than a pixelated image of a lion going on; I understand the implications of what I see, that I am in mortal danger, I run like hell for my life in stark terror.

If I go on safari and notice a lion creeping up on an antelope, there is more than a pixelated image of a lion going on in the antelope's mind; it too knows that it is in mortal danger, it runs like hell in stark terror.

I don't see any significant difference such that I have to have a whole different mechanism to be able to feel fear.

But lemurs, antelopes and lions merely react to the images they receive.  Does any animal look at a flower just to see the beauty in it?

They might, chimps and other apes appear to have a heightened sense of awareness.

That is an evolutionary quirk to aid more accurate throwing of their own faeces. (crikey, this just asserting any old stuff feels good....no wonder you people do it.)

[Alan Burns]

But lemurs, antelopes and lions merely react to the images they receive.  Does any animal look at a flower just to see the beauty in it?

We don't know that. But I have told you the story of bower birds constructing a nest which they think will attract the female aesthetically, so why keep ignoring the fact that they have a rudimentary idea of beauty.

But the example of the bower birds involves doing something just for the purpose of attracting a mate.  Most observable animal behaviour can be seen to have a specific purpose to aid survival.  I know of no example of animals showing appreciation of beauty just for the sake of it.

[Shaker]

I know of no example of animals showing appreciation of beauty just for the sake of it.

Yes you do - humans.

Lots of evidence of the same in chimps, which is downright obvious of course.

[Alan Burns]

Just returning to the subject of this thread, I would reccommend to those who are genuinely searching:

Take time to make periods of silence in your life.  We are so bombarded with numerous distractions in our modern world that it is increasingly difficult to find true silence.  I know of some people who are genuinely afraid of silence, but I personally treasure such moments - when I am able to come to terms with the reality of my existence, and be profoundly aware of God, with no sensory distractions.

[Rhiannon]

I know of no example of animals showing appreciation of beauty just for the sake of it.

Yes you do - humans.

Lots of evidence of the same in chimps, which is downright obvious of course.

And as I said earlier it isn't 'for the sake of it'. It enables our complex brains to function better and so enhances our performance levels and physical wellbeing.

[jeremyp]

Well we shouldn't slag off monkeys as it appears humans are a more evolved ape!

We are no more evolved than any other ape.  We are only differentiated in that our evolution has taken us in the direction of being more clever.  Time will tell if this is an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage.

[Shaker]

Just returning to the subject of this thread, I would reccommend to those who are genuinely searching:

Take time to make periods of silence in your life.  We are so bombarded with numerous distractions in our modern world that it is increasingly difficult to find true silence.  I know of some people who are genuinely afraid of silence, but I personally treasure such moments - when I am able to come to terms with the reality of my existence, and be profoundly aware of God, with no sensory distractions.

Very nice, and a near-perfect example of utterly failing to grapple with any of the points people have raised.

Searching for what, exactly?

[Leonard James]

But lemurs, antelopes and lions merely react to the images they receive.  Does any animal look at a flower just to see the beauty in it?

We don't know that. But I have told you the story of bower birds constructing a nest which they think will attract the female aesthetically, so why keep ignoring the fact that they have a rudimentary idea of beauty.

But the example of the bower birds involves doing something just for the purpose of attracting a mate.  Most observable animal behaviour can be seen to have a specific purpose to aid survival.

Which doesn't alter one iota the fact that they have a rudimentary aesthetic sense.

I know of no example of animals showing appreciation of beauty just for the sake of it.

That is no cause to jump to the conclusion that they never do it. In any case, the fact that we have developed it more means nothing. We have developed communication more than animals, but they survive quite successfully without it.

We invented gods to answer questions we couldn't, but it also served as a cohesive force for group protection ... and still does to a great extent. However,  that does not alter the fact that they are human inventions.

[Alan Burns]

Just returning to the subject of this thread, I would reccommend to those who are genuinely searching:

Take time to make periods of silence in your life.  We are so bombarded with numerous distractions in our modern world that it is increasingly difficult to find true silence.  I know of some people who are genuinely afraid of silence, but I personally treasure such moments - when I am able to come to terms with the reality of my existence, and be profoundly aware of God, with no sensory distractions.

Very nice, and a near-perfect example of utterly failing to grapple with any of the points people have raised.

Searching for what, exactly?

The truth

[Alan Burns]

We invented gods to answer questions we couldn't, but it also served as a cohesive force for group protection ... and still does to a great extent. However,  that does not alter the fact that they are human inventions.

It must have been a truly magical mutation in the DNA molecule which gave us the power to invent such things.