Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.

Not really.  I observe it every day in complex arrangements of non conscious material.

Alternatively, what you observe is the content of many brain cells as perceived by your human soul.

I have never observed the content of any brain cells, at least not on any complex arrangement of non conscious material that still shows evidence of self awareness.

Nor, by the way, have I ever observed a human soul. It seems to me that it would be a huge leap of faith to just assume that such things exist.

[Shaker]

From what I gather, an emergent property is an observation of some apparently non-random behaviour of material entities.

That's not how emergence is defined, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.

Not really.  I observe it every day in complex arrangements of non conscious material.

Alternatively, what you observe is the content of many brain cells as perceived by your human soul.

The soul is only a fancy name for consciousness!

So we agree that the soul and consciousness are the same thing 

[Leonard James]

So we agree that the soul and consciousness are the same thing 

If you want to call the ability of the brain to be aware of what is happening to its body the "soul", yes. But why give such a fanciful name to something that already has a perfectly self-explanatory one?

[Alan Burns]

So we agree that the soul and consciousness are the same thing 

If you want to call the ability of the brain to be aware of what is happening to its body the "soul", yes. But why give such a fanciful name to something that already has a perfectly self-explanatory one?

In physical terms there is nothing self explanatory anout conscious awareness.  We take it for granted, but we have no idea how it works.

We can detect chemical activity in the brain which coincides with our conscious awareness, but we do not know how the activity of many brain cells gets translated into a single entity of awareness.

The chemical activity of our conscious brain cells can be likened to the pixels on a computer screen, which represent the processes going on within the computer.  The activity of the pixels themselves are meaningless until they are perceived and interpreted by an outside observer (you).  For the content of our brain cells to be perceived and interpreted we need something separate from the brain itself - your soul.

[Alan Burns]

To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.

Not really.  I observe it every day in complex arrangements of non conscious material.

Alternatively, what you observe is the content of many brain cells as perceived by your human soul.

The soul is only a fancy name for consciousness!

So we agree that the soul and consciousness are the same thing 

So in which case animals of other species also have 'souls' as they are conscious too.

Animals react to sensory inputs in a way which we liken to our own conscious awareness, but these reactions could be driven by instinct and learnt experience without the need for conscious awareness.  We do not know for certain without entering the mind of the animal.  Our conscious awareness is only needed if we excerise free will, which is driven by our conscious awareness.

[Leonard James]

Hi Alan,

The brain has developed through a series of stages. It began with primitive organisms reacting to their environment for the process of reproduction ... absorbing sustenance for the purpose. Slowly, as evolution progressed, simple nervous systems arose that were more efficient at the job and thus took over. This finally developed a central control system, the brain, and gradually higher organisms became aware of their surroundings, coordinating the experiences of their different nervous senses into a whole ... the 'self'.

Humans, of course, have further developed this 'self' in many directions, but it is still nothing more than the ability of seeing and feeling the world around us. We have used our imagination to improve our lives in all sorts of different ways ... but unfortunately that imagination has led us along many false paths.

Inventing gods seems to have been a good idea to our forbears, but the result has been a mixture of good and bad. It is up to us to sort the wheat from the chaff, and ascertain what is true or not.

[ekim]

To assume that self awareness can somehow arise from a complex arrangement of non conscious material is a big step in faith.

Not really.  I observe it every day in complex arrangements of non conscious material.

Alternatively, what you observe is the content of many brain cells as perceived by your human soul.

The soul is only a fancy name for consciousness!

So we agree that the soul and consciousness are the same thing 

So in which case animals of other species also have 'souls' as they are conscious too.

Animals react to sensory inputs in a way which we liken to our own conscious awareness, but these reactions could be driven by instinct and learnt experience without the need for conscious awareness.  We do not know for certain without entering the mind of the animal.  Our conscious awareness is only needed if we excerise free will, which is driven by our conscious awareness.

Floo is probably right in the sense that the word 'soul' has been used to translate a number of Hebrew words of varying meanings in the Bible  e.g. nephesh - instincts, appetites, drives which we share with the animal world, and - neshama - human mind but with divine inspirational qualities.  The latter is similar in concept to the Greek word 'psyche' used in the New Testament. Soul is a word which leads to much confusion and is best avoided.
I would suggest that, despite having instincts, animals exhibit great 'conscious awareness', often much better than humans whose consciousness is often lost in thought or emotions.  If you have ever hunted animals in the wild you will see how much more alert they are than humans and how much more still and focused they can be.

[Sassy]

We are ALL animals, the only difference being humans are more evolved than the others. Given time we might find other species, like the apes for instance, will have our thinking skills too.  I don't know why you are so desperate to attribute everything to do with humans to your creation of a deity?

Evidence please....

Waiting.....

Still waiting.....

Oh evidence is proof we are waiting for that evidence from you for the above....

[Leonard James]

We are ALL animals, the only difference being humans are more evolved than the others. Given time we might find other species, like the apes for instance, will have our thinking skills too.  I don't know why you are so desperate to attribute everything to do with humans to your creation of a deity?

Evidence please....

Waiting.....

Still waiting.....

Oh evidence is proof we are waiting for that evidence from you for the above....

The evidence, Sassy, is evolution itself. But it is completely beyond your understanding.

[Nearly Sane]

We are ALL animals, the only difference being humans are more evolved than the others. Given time we might find other species, like the apes for instance, will have our thinking skills too.  I don't know why you are so desperate to attribute everything to do with humans to your creation of a deity?

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that talking about 'more evolved' shows that you have no understanding of evolution?

[ippy]

What's happening with the up and coming quantum computers then AB?

ippy

Quantum computers speed up processing by using simultaneous processing techniques rather than sequential program steps.  It is just a faster way of finding solutions.

I suppose it'll become an independent conscious machine a bit sooner then, how come Steven Hawkins thinks this is on its way and that we should proceed with caution?

Good old Steve H isn't exactly an idiot.

ippy

[Leonard James]

We are ALL animals, the only difference being humans are more evolved than the others. Given time we might find other species, like the apes for instance, will have our thinking skills too.  I don't know why you are so desperate to attribute everything to do with humans to your creation of a deity?

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that talking about 'more evolved' shows that you have no understanding of evolution?

Eh? Are you suggesting that we have evolved no more than bacteria since life began?

[jeremyp]

the only difference being humans are more evolved than the others

We are exactly as evolved as all the other living things on this planet.  It's just that we have evolved in a particular direction. 

[Nearly Sane]

Eh? Are you suggesting that we have evolved no more than bacteria since life began?

Not suggesting it, pointing out that the very concept is meaningless in terms of evolution.

[jeremyp]

We are ALL animals, the only difference being humans are more evolved than the others. Given time we might find other species, like the apes for instance, will have our thinking skills too.  I don't know why you are so desperate to attribute everything to do with humans to your creation of a deity?

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that talking about 'more evolved' shows that you have no understanding of evolution?

Eh? Are you suggesting that we have evolved no more than bacteria since life began?

Actually, due to their fast reproduction rate, bacteria adapt extremely quickly by our standards.  This makes them vastly superior life forms. 

[floo]

We are ALL animals, the only difference being humans are more evolved than the others. Given time we might find other species, like the apes for instance, will have our thinking skills too.  I don't know why you are so desperate to attribute everything to do with humans to your creation of a deity?

Evidence please....

Waiting.....

Still waiting.....

Oh evidence is proof we are waiting for that evidence from you for the above....

Evidence for what? It is you who doesn't give evidence for your fanciful claptrap!

[floo]

the only difference being humans are more evolved than the others

We are exactly as evolved as all the other living things on this planet.  It's just that we have evolved in a particular direction.

Well put.

[ippy]

We are ALL animals, the only difference being humans are more evolved than the others. Given time we might find other species, like the apes for instance, will have our thinking skills too.  I don't know why you are so desperate to attribute everything to do with humans to your creation of a deity?

Evidence please....

Waiting.....

Still waiting.....

Oh evidence is proof we are waiting for that evidence from you for the above....

Sass, you're just like Hope and the other Twit that posts here, the evidence is there for evolution, yes it's a theory but it's also a theory that hasn't had a serious challenge since its conception.

You however would like to put forward a theory of a Mr Magic in the Sky; so it's for you to address the problem of substantiating your claim.

All of the others that post here on the forum, the ones that you like to call atheists, are not putting forward anything for you to believe in unless you feel you can substantiate whatever it might be that you feel we should be sharing with you.

So we're not suggesting you should believe in anything that there is almost zero evidence that would support it.

You would like us to believe in something that has as near to zero evidence that would support it as it's possible to get and then have the effrontery to ask us for evidence?     

How many times do we have to keep telling you, using various terms, the same thing over and over again before it sinks in?

Your book/manual is a very good man made story book and so I'm told the KJV is a giant part of our literature, all of the evidence I have heard supports that it is, but that doesn't make it anything more than a really good example of English literature.

ippy

[Alien]

Excellent post,  Torri. 

You too, enki.

I tend towards the viewpoint that there is no ghost within the machine, and that what we call free will is probably the result of the complexity of our brains. There is plenty of evidence that many people whose brains have been damaged respond quite differently to stimuli in contrast to how they did before the damage took place. Perhaps it's partly a case of the brain acting upon the information it absorbs to make its decisions. It may be true that quantum indeterminacy plays a part in this, but, if so, this still would not be a case for free will.

With the above in mind, I think I understand where Torridon is coming from. And I think he expressed it beautifully, so I think I would disagree with you about being more critical, unless, of course, you can bring powerful evidence to the table that free will actually exists..in which case, I might well change my mind.   

I would agree that it is possible that we have the illusion of free will. However, until someone demonstrates we don't, I'll carry on assuming we do have it. Why? Because it seems to be correct and I see no good reason to think otherwise. There could well be mileage in what you say about brain damage, but I'm not yet (totally) convinced. That is partly due to not being able to define free will totally to my own satisfaction. Does free will mean making decisions without being forced into them by an external agency? If so, then even a person with brain damage can do that, but is such a definition useful in determining whether someone is responsible for good and evil moral decisions (assuming we ever came to an agreement on these boards as to whether there is such a thing as a morality which is meaningful (rather than just "what I like" or "what is best, in my subjective view, for my own particular species").

There is also the problem for those holding the view that free will does not exist in that they can never have a good reason for believing free will does not exist. Note I am not saying that free will cannot not exist, but rather that there cannot be a good reason for believing it. If free will does not exist then those who believe it does not exist can't help but believe it does not exist and those who do believe it exists can't help but believe it exists.

And stuff.

[Alien]

...
History is a form of science albeit one beset with a number of unique challenges.

I've not heard that one before. Which universities have history in the science department?

It's a science in the sense that you observe the evidence, make hypotheses and then search for more evidence to support your hypothesis.  Of course, you can't do experiments and the evidence is often very sparse, but it is still scientific in nature.

In particular, assuming the existence of a supernatural entity in order to make the hypothesis you like more "plausible" is as invalid in history as in physics.

So why do you think that the history department in universities never part of the science department? What have the university departments missed that you have twigged? Could it be that your understanding of what constitutes science does not agree with theirs?

[Alien]

...How is free will not consistent with science?

Science has revealed an observed, material world that is ovewhelmingly true to the principal of cause and effect. Victorian science gave us a clockwork universe with no room at all for freedom from determinism; now the issue is muddied by discovery of the quantum substrate in which unobserved reality is probabilistic and perhaps whereas Sartre gave us existence precedes essence, we could now mischieviously add probability precedes existence but notwithstanding that the notion of free-will offends the principal of cause and effect which is seen to pertain at the levels of chemistry, biology and up. Things happen for a reason; a ball thrown in the air pretty much always comes back down again, it rarely ever flies off at a tangent or morphs into a bowl of petunuias. If we make a choice, it must be for a reason, even if we cannot discern the reason.

Those who argue that quantum indeterminacy could be a basis for free will are arguing a foolish case.  There may be some genuine randomness in the cosmos, in which case there might be some randomness in the choices made in human brains but randomness is an enemy of purposefulness, you cannot claim accidental choices as part of your volition. What any such indeterminacy would give us would be a measure of (relative) unpredictability; this would be of potential value to a prey animal (which humans are) as a predators depend on their ability to predict the behaviour of their prey. Unpredictabiity could be of value to adaptive predators (which humans are) as it would help them to explore a greater diversity of opportunities and niches. But unpredictability is not will. Will is a manifestion of the ubiquitous principal of cause and effect at the messy complex level of animal behaviours and I see nothing from biology or neuroscience to suggest that human brains are so categorically different from other animal brains as to suppose that humans can escape the great chain of cause and effect. Things happen for reasons, and it is good that it is so.

As you may have noticed from a post or two back I am not totally sure how to define "free will", but one definition I would not use is that of indeterminacy or unpredictability.

[Alan Burns]

Hi Alan,

The brain has developed through a series of stages. It began with primitive organisms reacting to their environment for the process of reproduction ... absorbing sustenance for the purpose. Slowly, as evolution progressed, simple nervous systems arose that were more efficient at the job and thus took over. This finally developed a central control system, the brain, and gradually higher organisms became aware of their surroundings, coordinating the experiences of their different nervous senses into a whole ... the 'self'.

Humans, of course, have further developed this 'self' in many directions, but it is still nothing more than the ability of seeing and feeling the world around us. We have used our imagination to improve our lives in all sorts of different ways ... but unfortunately that imagination has led us along many false paths.

Inventing gods seems to have been a good idea to our forbears, but the result has been a mixture of good and bad. It is up to us to sort the wheat from the chaff, and ascertain what is true or not.

Hi Leonard,

I see your logic, but I still fail to see how a product of natural selection could ever have the ability to believe (or disbelieve) in any form of deity.  It has not happened in any other life form except humans, who alone seem to have aquired this unique gift.

Alan

[Shaker]

I see your logic, but I still fail to see how a product of natural selection could ever have the ability to believe (or disbelieve) in any form of deity.

The argument from personal incredulity cuts no ice.

It has not happened in any other life form except humans, who alone seem to have aquired this unique gift.

Some "gift."

[Nearly Sane]

Of course the statement that no other animal has a concept of God is assertion, never mind that it ignores the entire problem of hard solipsism to make it.